Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12-103815 12-103816 12-103814 (2)
CITY OF CITY HALL Federal WayFeder 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ms. Dale YeagerILE December 20, 20li Yeager Associates 14323 116t" Avenue East Puyallup, WA 98374 V: Re: File #12-103816-00-SE; ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Palisades(Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Dear Ms. Yeager: The city and jurisdictional agencies have reviewed the environmental checklist submitted with the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement Master Land Use (MLU) application. It has been determined that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. As a result, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A copy of the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is enclosed. A 14-day comment period is required by the SEPA rules (WAC 197-1 1-340). A notice inviting comments will be published in the Federal Way Mirror on December 20, 2013. At the end of the comment period, the department will determine if the DNS should be withdrawn, modified, or issued as proposed. All final determinations may be appealed within 14 days following the comment deadline. No licenses, permits, or approvals will be issued until completion of the appeal period. The decision not to require an EIS does not grant the license, permit, or approval you are seeking from the city. The environmental record is considered by the decision maker(s) and conditions may be imposed to reduce identified environmental impacts, as long as the conditions are based on adopted and designated city policy. After a final decision has been made on your proposal you may, but are not required to, publish a Notice of Action as permitted in RCW 43.21 C.075. The Notice of Action sets forth a time period after which no legal challenges regarding the proposal's compliance with SEPA can be made. The city is not responsible for publishing the Notice of Action. Questions regarding the environmental review component should be directed to me at 253-835-2644, or janet.slitfll rr.citvoffecteral,,vay.com. Sincerely, i7et Shul , AICP nior Planner enclosure Doc. I.D. 64727 CITY OF 4A Federal Way ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement FEDERAL WAY FILE No:12-103816-00-SE Proposal: Proposal to construct a 100 linear foot bulkhead, 90 linear foot soft shore armoring, and repair a portion of an existing beach access stair. All work is proposed within a designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment. The site is also categorized as a geologically hazardous area (steep slope, erosion, and seismic hazard) and is located within a designated coastal flood hazard area. Applicant: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9t` Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road. Federal Way, WA 98023; King County Tax Parcel Number 112103-9010 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, 253-835-2644 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act pursuant to RCW 43.31 C.110. This information is available to the public on request. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request from the Department of Community and Economic Development. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on January 3, 2014. Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the city's final determination may file an appeal with the city within 14 days of the above comment deadline. You may appeal this determination to the Federal Way City Clerk (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 17, 2014, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. Appellant should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen for Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development Address: 33325 8`h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date Issued: December 20.2013 Doc. I.D. 64676 A� CITY 4F Federal Way RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2013 LANDAU ASSOC TACO%IATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: September 16, 2013 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community and Economic Development 33325 8 h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Edward J Heavey, PE via Theresa Turpin Landau Associates, Inc. 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Project: Palisades (Archibishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stair Replacement File No's: 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Project Proponent: Ed Foster Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 9`h Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-382-4851 Project Planner: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP (253-835-2644) Documents Provided: o One copy of an updated Geologic Hazards Assessment dated September 2, 2013 o Copy of Memorandum listing items transmitted on July 26, 2013 that are to be reviewed along with the updated Geologic Hazards Assessment noted above. (note: the updated Geologic Hazards Assessment provided with this notice should replace that provided with items transmitted on July 26, 2013) Task Scope: The applicant proposes to replace the lower portion of an existing beach access stair and replace a timber pile bulkhead with a new rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring. The site is within the Shoreline Urban Conservancy environment and bulkheads are only allowed with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the applicant is proposing a bulkhead that exceeds the maximum height limit. The increased bulkhead height may only be permitted via a Shoreline Variance. Both the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance applications will be reviewed under Process IV, Hearing Examiner land use review. The applicant has revised the scopc of the bulkhead and soft -shore armoring proposal and provided resuhmittaI items noted above. This task scope requests that landau update the technical memorandum dated February 27, 2013 per the applicant's revisions to their proposal and supporting technical documentation to address the following: 1) Review submitted documents for conformance with the following provisions ofFWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management": e Section 15.05.040, "General Development Standards"; Section I5.05.050(1), "Shoreline Modifications" for the proposed bulkhead'; • Section 15.05.160, "Shoreline Variance," including analysis as to whether the proposed variance meets the criteria specified in 15.05.160(3); and • Section 15.05.170, "Conditional Uses," including analysis as to whether the proposed bulkhead meets the criteria for approving a conditional use as specified in 15.05.170(4). 2) Provide technical memorandum(s) identifying any additional information requested as necessary. 3) Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 4) Possible meetings on site and/or with applicant's geotechnical engineer and/or environmental consultants. 5) Provide revised technical memorandum(s) per the revised project scope and supportive documentation regarding the proposal's conformance with the FWRC. 6) Attend one Hearing Examiner Public Hearing. Task Schedule: The applicant has requested that the third -party review of the resubmitted items be completed within two weeks of receipt of this authorization and documents listed above. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 7.021 kithout a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (N to add ition to the total amount authorized herin, there is a balance of $377.54 in unexpended funds from the initial project review that will be, applied to cover the fee identified in the scope for this review.) Acceptance: `C,QI 2 7 f F eral Way Planner Date Consultant Date d N LL 4- 0 A r�+ U, 0 'o 'o 0 0 U) O O O N 'aO ((00 ffl fH ONO fR CDM N d? (00 (A ( O Ok U) O � Cc (n In V). 60N9 69 0 b9 64 O Cl Z x lV0 CD l0 VT (00 CO OD� CO (00 O CD u3 (H (A (A (A N H EA (A 64 N N co 00 O J O 0 _ l9 dco 0 CD 0 O d bo U O O O O a) CO U O O O (0 co U' O O co coo e� 0 U O O O 'c N_ d 'c d co O N N N In N M co co a � p UO O O O O E CO) U) a e9 U O N N (n N CO 00 = O) N O O O O p) W m `° y a c O U L E N J N w c a) 0) w c 1a M Q E E N m ~ a v �_ J o E a) (w o ao) E Df -00 d o a) a) a) 6 H au)Z5 N 3 U 3 U U) w .O _ .O 7 U) Y aa i m p `o) c OF c c Q C I U L C U U F co 2 Fa o00 U a) 0) Cl (M V N a) (V (V N U) W a U O (n Q D a CITY OF Federal Way April 2, 2014 Mr. David Pater Shorelands'and Envirot mental Assistance Department of Ecology 319(1 14-0,h Avenue SE Bellev..ie `JUA 98008-5454 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. cam File Re: File Nos. 12-103812-SH,12-103814-Sll, and 12-103815-SH; SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL -- ' DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL, SHORELINE VARIANCE APPROVAL, AND SHOREMNE CONDITYO'� AL USE APPROVAL Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead, Soft Shore Stabilization, Beach - Access Stair, and Shoreline Restoration; 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Dear. iv1r. Pater: The Ciro of Federal &":ay's ?�epaxtment of Community and EcorAomic Development Hearing Examiner has issued a decision xvit:h Cbndirons for a shoreline substantial developrr.ent permit for ;repair and reuiactineni o • A section nt an ex!;6t v. h,-s,rh access stair and soft shore stabilization, and a shoreline .varlfl"-.ce . -n�i conditional s-� P hip for ��:�n�_r �cti r_ •af a rock }ulkhead within 200 feet of the oidina •hi .h `vat�r l; _ iY g in -Ark -)f Puget Sound in Federal Way. `Na"shington, p-,:isuant to the State Shoreline Management Act mill the ci ty's 'Ohhoreline Managemen. t Progv?in To assist your review of the shorebrne pernuit,1 have enclosed the following exhibits: t. 5tioreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal. ' 1 is ?. _;wring t-::ta.niri�:r :minding. oi- F:a�.t, Conclusions of Law and Decision, Ma:J, cli 28, _o.F. ?. City of Fl �ederazy Staff Rer .;_=t tc the Hearing Examiner with exhibits as fellow Master Land Use Application ' Revd ed Site Plan, Mat* -h 4, 2014 c. Letter from the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Mach 1; 7.1114 d. Photo Exhibit, August 1; 2{i13 e. Shoreline Peirnits Consistency Report, -Yeager Associates, revised July 10, 2013 f. Fislh and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Sound -view Consultants, revised j,_, y 2013 _ g. Geologic Hazards Assessm rit, GeoResources LLC, revised September 2, 2013 h. JARPA Fornh, revised Jrily 2013 i, Cultural -�Ekesources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Improvements Project, Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc., July 31, 2012 j. Letter From Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, October ?..4 ?.012 k. Email comment from David ?Pater, Department of Ecology with attachment, August 1, 2013 3 1. Revised Geotech.nical R.miew Archbishop 3ninette Retreat Center, Proposed Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration, Landau Associates, November 13, 2013 1•Ir. David Pater Page 2 April 2, 2014 m. Revised Third Party Review of the Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement, Landau Associates, November 13, 2013 n. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance, issued December 20, 2013 o. Final S`Eaff Evaluation for the Environmental Checklist (with exhibits including site plan, vicinity map, and annotated SEPA checklist), December 19, 2013 p. Email comment From 2ach Hughes, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), January 13, 2014 q. Email comment from Laura Arber, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) with attachment, January 8, 2014 r. Email comment from Michael Riedy, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), March 5, 2014 S. Excerpts from the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program, Section 6 — Restoration Plan, ESA Adolfson, revised June 1010 I hope this information is sufficient to allow the department's Shorelands Division and Attorney .General to review the application. Please contact me at 253--835-2644, or j:3rtet.shul7cityoffederalway.c.)m if you have an), questions - ,.Sincerely, ]ar et Shull, AICP ,;nior 1 .:Inne.c F:nclos urc� C: AttoriU'v Ge nerai, Fish, Wildlife and Parka: Division; 130 Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100 - •i Fd, # 12-1031512-CFI Doc. 1, D. 65330 Tina Pie From: Tina Piety Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:43 PM To: zach.hughes@noaa.gov Cc: Janet Shull Subject: Federal Way Palisades Retreat Project Attachments: Letter to Hughes.pdf; HEX Decision.pdf Hello, As requested by Senior Planner Janet Shull, please find attached a submittal letter and a copy of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner's Decision for the Palisades Retreat Bulkhead project. Please contact Janet at 253-835-2644, or ianet.shull(@cityoffederalwau.com, if you have any questions or comments. Please note that Janet is out of the office and will return on Monday, April 14. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2601; Fax 253-835-2609 4CITY OF �.. Federal April 4, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Way Federal lA/ay, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cr yoffederaiway.com Marine Ecologist Zach IIughes National Marine Fisheries Seivice zach.hughes@noaa.gov Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulldiead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stair tower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Marine Ecologist Hughes: Please Find enclosed a copy of the Cite of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at II Inc t.sliullcityr�fledr rstlsva cam, or 253-835-2644. Sincere Jet Janet Shul Senior Planner C: fill. Pile it 12-11138I ASII 1),.c.1 u. 66337 CITY OF CITY HALL 33825 8th Avenue South Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com April 4, 2014 Marine Ecologist Zach Hughes National Marine Fisheries Service zach.hughes@noaa.gov Re: Files #12-103812-SH,12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Marine Ecologist Hughes: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at'Inc:tAIL111�cir<nFfederaln2s.con , or 253-835-2644. Sincer �R Janet Shul Senior Planner Enclosure c file 141r 0 12- I (13F 12-51 1 Doc. I U 65337 CITY OF A Federal April 4, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway. com King County Department of Assessments 500 46, Avenue, Room 700 #ADM-AS-0708 Seattle, WA 98104 FILE Re: Files #12-103812-SH,12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear King County Department of Assessments: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Waslungton State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at 'anet.sliull citvoffed •alma . m, or 253-835-2644. Sincaerel Janet Shu t CP Senior Planner Enclosure c: file I ile # 12-103812-SI-I Doc. I.U. 65337 CITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com April 4, 2014 Natural Hazards Program Specialist Michael J. Riedy, CEM, CFM ILE Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X Federal Regional Center 130 22811, Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Re: Files #12-103812-SH,12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Natural Hazards Program Specialist Riedy, CEM, CFM: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at'atiet.shullacir offederalway.coin, or 253-835-2644. Sincer , Janet Shull, i ICP Senior Planner Enclosure c: file Idle #12-103512-SI I Doc. I,D, 65337 CITY OF t. Federal Way April 4, 2014 Marine Habitat Biologist Laura Arber Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 ]Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Marine Habitat Biologist Arber: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact meat jaaet.shulloa ciMpffederalway.com, or 253-835-2644. Sis1cerel Jac Janet Shul , _ Senior Planner Enclosure c: rile Pil,=12-103S12S11 Doi L"Gi337 CITY OF Federal April 4, 2014 Senior Biologist Racheal Villa Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harboiview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com F11-e Re: Files #12-103812-SH,12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Senior Biologist Villa: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at 'ane .shullcin offeder sl�us��.cotz�, or 253-835-2644. Sincerely Janet Shull, c Senior Planner Enclosure c: file Pile #12-1113812->I1 Doc. LD 65337 ACITY OF S, Federal July 2, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. Gus Ripple Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 9th Avenue Seatde, WA 98104 Re: File #12-103814-00-SH; THIRD PARTY REVIEW Palisades (.Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stairtower; 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Dear Mr. Ripple: FILE Please find enclosed an invoice for third party review of Hearing Examiner hearing packet materials and attendance at the Hearing Examiner Hearing on March 14, 2014. There were not adequate funds in the original third party review fee estimate to cover the additional review necessitated by the additional plan modifications and therefore, completion of the review and attendance at the hearing went slightly beyond the original fee estimate. I have also enclosed the third party reviewer's invoice and estimate for the additional services for reference. Note the third party reviewer's additional services were less than the estimate; therefore, the reference to a "remaining budget." This is the final invoice from the third party reviewer on this phase of the project and they will not be billing for any additional services related to this phase of your project. Please be advised there will be third party review required for the monitoring component of the shoreline restoration and mitigation components of your project (per the Shoreline Conditional Use and Variance permits) and we are currently soliciting a scope of work and fee estimate for that phase of your project. We will forward that information to you for your review and approval as soon as it is available. Please contact me at 253-835-2644, or.janet.shullQr-itmffederal%vay.com, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ja et Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate mor Planner Eric: City Invoice Third Party Invoice For Services Fee Estimate for Additional Services 13- I.U. 66017 INVOICE City of Federal Way Cl" OF Invoice Date: June 26, 2014 Fed a ra I Way Bill #: 187667 Ph: (253) 835-7000 Permit #: 12-103814-00 Project Name: PALISADES (ARCHBISHOP BRUNET] Site Address: 4700 SW DASH POINT RD Applicant Name: CCAS PROPERTY & CONST & CORPORATION OF' FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CD-PLN OTHER REVIEW(8061).............................................. $862.50 001-0000-000-239-10-008 TOTAL DUE: $862.50 LANDAU ASSOCIATES March 11, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8t' Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Janet Shull, Senior Planner RE: SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES PALISADES RETREAT CENTER FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Shull: In accordance with your request, Landau Associates will be providing supplemental review services to the City of Federal Way (City) for the above -referenced project. Supplement services will consist of supporting the City in an upcoming public hearing regarding the proposed bulkhead replacement at the Palisades Retreat Center located in Federal Way, Washington. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services to be provided includes: • Project management and invoicing. • Review the City staff report and other relevant information provided by the City concerning the applicant's proposal. • Attend the public hearing to answer questions if need be. The public hearing will be held at 11:00 a.m. on Friday, March 14, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington. The public hearing is expected to last 1 to 2 hours. Edward Heavey, P.E. and Theresa Turpin, a former employee of Landau Associates now with SO Alliance, will attend the public hearing. Theresa Turpin will attend as a subconsultant to Landau Associates. ESTIMATED FEE We will continue to provide our services on a time and expense basis in accordance with September 16, 2013 Geotechnical Consultant Authorization Form authorized on September 27, 2013. The estimated fee for the scope of services described above is $1,850, as described in the table below. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Su"rfe 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • TRI-CITIES • SPOKANE • PORTLAND ESTIMATED FEE Project Management $ 200 Review Information 380 Attend Public Hearing, including reimbursables 570 Subconsultant (Shea Carr Jewel Alliance) 700 Estimate Total fee $1,850 If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total estimated fee for our services without prior authorization from the City. If the above scope, schedule, and budget are acceptable, please provide us with written authorization. Landau Associates appreciates the opportunity to continue supporting the City of Federal Way on this project. If any questions arise regarding this proposal, please call. LANDAU ASSOCIA S, INC. Edward J. avey, P.E. Principal EJH/j rc 3/11/14 Y1236\062.020AM\Supp1menta1 Services prop.docx L ANDAu ASSOCIATES 2 4 CITY OF �4:� Federal April 4, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. Keith Schembs GeoResources LLC 5007 Pacific Flighway East, Suite 16 Fife, WA 98424 FILE Re: Files #12-103812-SH,12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Mr. Schembs: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at jatiet.shiffl@ citvo fe ei,llnrac.corr►, or 253-835-2644. Sincer Janet Shull, r Senior Planner Enclosure c: Filc D-, I,I), 6333-1 CITY OF A**�. Federal April 4, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. Kevin Broderick, AIA Broderick Architects 55 South Atlantic Street, Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98134 Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Mr. Broderick, AIA: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review, and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at aoiet.sln li dici.te oFfederah� s� .com, or 253-835-2644. Sincerely, Janet Shull, r Senior Planner Enclosure c: File file I12-103812-SI I D-. I.D. 65337 CITY OF CITY HALL Federal � Feder 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 f (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com April 4, 2014 Ms. Theresa Turpin SCJ Alliance 2102 Carriage Street SW, Suite H Olympia, WA 98502 Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Ms. Turpin: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at-innet.shul citvoffederahva y.com, or253-835-2644. Sincer Janet Slzul . Senior Planner LSuclosurc c: Flc Vd, r 12-103R 11-S I I Doc. I.D. 65337 CITY OF CITY HALL A§�Federal Wa Feder 8th Avenue South y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 wwwcityoffederalway. com April 4, 2014 Principal Ed Heavey, PE Landau Associates, Inc. 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Principal Heavey, PE: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been f6twarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact meat 'anet.slrull c citx-offederalwgv.coni, or 253-835-2644. Sincerely I� Janet Shull, i Senior Planner Enclosure e: file FL 9 2-103812-S1 I Doi; I.D, 65337 CITY OF �. Federal April 4, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway. com Mr. Dale Yeager Yeager Associates 12020 456, Avenue Court NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear ML. Yeager: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at 'anet.sliull citvofFedeial\vay.cotn, or 253-835-2644. 5incer , Janet 5hu C Senior Planner Enclosure c: file FL # 13-103312-i I I D-, I,1). G 33 i CITY OF Federal April 4, 2014 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Mr. Gus Ripple Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 91i' Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 FILE Re: Files #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH; HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead Soft Shore Stabilization, Restoration and Stairtower: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance Permit 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Washington Dear Ivlr. Ripple: Please find enclosed a copy of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Decision on the above - referenced project. This decision has been forwarded to the Washington State Department of Ecology for their review and final decision on the shoreline permits related to this proposal. If you have any questions on the enclosed decision, please contact me at ianet.sliullet��'e�fhederalaay.cam, or 253-835-2644. SisYcerely /rs Janet Shull ` Senior Planner Enclosure c: file hJc #12-1113ti12-JI I Ups 1 U 63337 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair ' 12-103812-SH, 103815-SH 12-103814-SH, and 12- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION INTRODUCTION The applicant has requested approval of a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance in order to construct a bulkhead and beach access stair for the Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center, located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road. The shoreline variance is to exceed the height requirement of FWRC 15.05.050(2)(b)(i), which prohibits bulkheads from exceeding a height of one foot above Mean High Higher Water. The shoreline conditional use permit is required for the bulkhead because it is proposed within an area designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy. The shoreline substantial development permit is required for the proposed beach access stair and soft shoreline armoring that will adjoin the bulkhead. The three shoreline permits are approved with conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY Ms. Janet Shull, Community Economic Development, stated that the project site is approx. 35.8 acres in size. There is a Boy Scout camp to the west of the property, and the rest of the surrounding development is primarily single family in character. The zoning for the property is suburban estates, which is a residential zoning designation that has a minimum lot size of five acres per lot. The shoreline designation for the property is urban conservancy, which is a designation in Federal Way that is applied to properties that allow for urban development but have natural amenities and/or environmental constraints to them. This property is a retreat center/church, and it is operated by the corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. Ms. Shull stated that the proposal is for a 45-foot bulkhead as well as a soft shore armoring that would be about 25 feet on either side of the 45-foot bulkhead. She stated that the process for review involved a shoreline variance permit, a shoreline conditional use permit, and a shoreline substantial development permit. There have been various iterations to this proposal, and revisions to the project make it no longer necessary to have a variance for the location since the bulkhead will not be beyond the ordinary high watermark Ms. Shull stated that the applicant has proposed using best management practices during the construction activity, restoration of the vegetation disturbed during the construction activity, beach nourishment per the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife standards, and shoreline restoration. Staff issued an environmental determination on the project in December 2013. They received no comments in the official comment period, Shoreline Pemuts P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation although they did receive some comments afterward. Those comments are Exhibit K within the Staff Report. The National Marine Fisheries as well as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed concern over the size of the bulkhead and the potential impact on the shoreline habitat functions. The applicant decided to modify the proposal in response to that. One additional comment, which is Exhibit R, from FEMA came that was concerned about the format and content of the fish and wildlife habitat assessment, and staff recommends a condition to address that concern. Staff received no appeals to the SEPA determination. The project has changed slightly since the SEPA determination, but the project remains in the area that the SEPA determination reviewed. Staff has found that the proposal is consistent with the goals, the objectives, and the policies of the shoreline master program, with the comprehensive plan in city code, and with the policies, guidelines, and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act. For the conditional use permit, the Hearing Examiner must find that the proposed use is consistent with RCW 90.58.020. In summary, Staff believes that the bulkhead that is proposed is roughly equivalent to that which has failed. The recommended conditions that Staff has developed in addition to the mitigation the applicant proposes will help to ensure that there is no substantial detrimental impact. With regard to the variance criteria, the Hearing Examiner must find that the strict requirements of bulk dimensional performance standards preclude or significantly interfere with reasonable use of the property, that the hardship is specifically related to the unique conditions of the property, that the design of the project will be combatable with other permitted activities in the area, that the variance does not constitute or grant special privilege, that navigation will not be adversely affected, and that consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of similar actions. Staff believes that this project meets these criteria. The existing bulkhead that failed was taller than what would be permitted by the Shoreline Master Program today, and the applicant has proposed a slightly taller bulkhead than is permitted in order to protect the stairs properly, which Staff believes is a reasonable request that is related to the conditions of the site. Ms. Shull stated that, in summary, Staff feels that the applicant has documented an imminent threat to the existing beach access, and a bulkhead will protect this access. Staff recommends approval with conditions: first, that the applicant shall submit a final mitigation and monitoring plan for review and approval by the city that includes peer review funded by the applicant; second, the final mitigation and monitoring plan shall have a plan for beach nourishment per the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements; third, construction documents shall clearly indicate how vegetation conservation requirements are met in the urban conservancy zone; fourth, the applicant shall modify the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment report as necessary to meet the minimal requirements of the biological opinion as required by FEMA for development in a flood plane, which relates directly to the comment from FEMA. Ms. Shull clarified that there are unique circumstances on the site (e.g. the steepness of the bank), although Staff has started to discuss with Ecology whether there is a problem with city regulations in regard to bulk height. Under questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Shull stated that there is no other reasonable way to allow the applicant to access the Shoreline Permits p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation property, and access is considered a reasonable use of the property that necessitates a variance permit. Applicant Testimony Mr. John Hempelmann stated that he is the real estate and land use counsel for the Catholic Archdioceses of Seattle, and he would manage the presentation for the applicant. He stated that the applicant concurred with the staff report and accepted the conditions in it. He called to the podium Gus Ripple. Mr. Ripple stated that he was an employee of the applicant, the Archdioceses of Seattle. The application was made in 2012. The Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center at the Palisades was opened in 1956. It was purchased by the Archdioceses in 2000, and major renovations was made. The center was renamed after Archbishop Brunett in 2011. Mass is celebrated frequently in the chapel, and the facility is occupied full-time by retired priests. The center is known for its history, beauty, and peaceful environment, and has hosted events for Catholics as well as for non-Catholics such as retreats, meetings, and leadership seminars. Many events in the past have included walks on the beach, which is a beautiful, secluded area, but access to the beach has been closed since 2011 because the stairs are unsafe. Mr. Ripple stated that when they investigated the damage to the bluff that led to the stair failure, erosion was found to the east of the stairs. The applicant retained a geotechnical consultant to assess the condition of the bluff and potential impact to the facility. One of his recommendations was to address the bluff vegetation, and the applicant obtained city approval for a vegetation management plan in late 2013. Most of that work is complete. Another of his recommendations was to protect the shoreline from erosion prior to rebuilding the stairs. Retreat center staff are frequently asked when the stairs will be rebuilt, and staff is eager to tell guests that stairs will be reopened for beach access. They hope that this will be accomplished by late summer, 2014. Mr. Hempelmann called Mr. Kevin Broderick to the podium. Mr. Broderick stated that he was with Broderick Architects, and he was the lead architect on this project for the applicant. His 8.5 x 11 photographs were admitted to the record as Exhibit S. Mr. Broderick stated that photograph A shows down the stairs to the beach, photograph B shows the bulkhead, and photograph C looks at the bulkhead from the west, showing the failed slope behind the bulkhead as well as the failed stairs. Photograph D looks at the bulkhead from the east, and photograph E shows how the bulkhead has failed. Photograph F is from the north to show the overall height of the bluff. Mr. Broderick stated that photograph G tells the whole story, showing the failed stairs, the washed-out slope, and the bulkhead in disrepair. A poster board with two elevations that show the stair landing and the typical hard bulkhead section was admitted to the record as Exhibit 6. Next, a detailed plan of the bulkhead was admitted to the record as Exhibit 7. Mr. Broderick stated that staff has explained how the project complies with the provisions that relate to shoreline modifications in 15.05.050, with variance criteria in 15.05.160, section 3, and with CUD criteria in 15.05.170, section 4. Initially, the project asked for a Shoreline Permits p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 380-foot hard armoring, and now after several iterations the proposal is for a 45-foot hard armoring. Under questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Broderick stated that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was the driving force in the decision to change the position on the amount of hard armoring. Their consultants believe that additional armoring is necessary, but it became apparent that it would be a long process to make that happen, thus the applicant decided to have something done sooner rather than later on a smaller scale. Keith Schembs stated that he was an engineering geologist with GeoResources, and he was asked to prepare a geotechnical engineering report for the project. The report initially addressed what could be done to deal with the erosion at the site before the stairs were repaired. The report was revised September 2, 2013, and it concluded that the area subject to a three-year imminent threat was about 190 feet. Mr. Schembs stated that there was a difference in the soil that comprises the bluff in the vicinity of the stairs, which is one unique situation on the project site. In other words, the project site is more unstable than most other Federal Way shorelines. It is uniquely unstable. Mr. Schembs stated that the amount of armoring that is proposed at this point is sufficient to protect the stair landing. Even the third party review agreed with their recommendation that the armoring extend from the property line to a point about 100 feet, and they recommended a transition to a soft armoring after the hard. Under questioning by Mr. Hempelmann, Mr. Schembs stated that he anticipated further erosion/damage to the stairs, especially from the area where the proposed armoring is ending to the west. That area is still at risk, but it will be safe to use the stairs if the current proposal is implemented. Ms. Rachel Villa, Soundview Consultants, stated that the mitigation plan that was developed at the beginning was created for much larger impacts, thus there is more than enough mitigation for the scale of the project as it stands now. The monitoring plan calls for the area to be monitored for two years to allow for the vegetation survival and to show that the habitat around the rockery will not be adversely impacted. The monitoring plan will involve GPS locations of four monitoring plots, two on the upland for vegetation survival and two on the beach for habitat substrate conditions. Those are subject to peer review/staff review for implementation of the project. In Fall, 2012, Laura Arber from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife looked at the site, and she said in an e-mail on March 10, 2014 that the proposal seems acceptable by WDFW. She asked two questions, and both were sufficiently answered. This e-mail was admitted to the record as Exhibit 10. Another e-mail from the Army Corps of Engineers on March 10, 2014 said that the revisions in the project appear to be focused on rock wall and soft armoring and asked whether there was a change to the proposed work in the core jurisdiction, and they responded that the only change in that part of the plan is the reduced scope. Ms. Villa stated that the core project manager from the Army Corps concurred with her findings that the project with the mitigation would not create adverse effects to PHS-listed species. This e- mail was admitted to the record as Exhibit 11. The final habitat mitigation assessment from Ms. Villa was admitted to the record as Exhibit 12. Shoreline Permits p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Ms. Janet Shull stated that Staff has not yet had a chance to review the revised habitat assessment that is now Exhibit 12, but they are happy that it has arrived. She does not need the record to be kept open in order to change their recommendation based on what is in that report. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Staff Report (which includes attachments A-S) Exhibit 2: PowerPoint from Community Economic Development Exhibit 3: Testimony from Mr. Gus Ripple Exhibit 4: Photograph of the Retreat Center from Mr. Ripple Exhibit 5: 8.5 x 11 photographs from Mr. Broderick Exhibit 6: Diagram that shows the area from Mr. Broderick Exhibit 7: Detailed Plan of the Bulkhead from Mr. Broderick Exhibit 8: Broderick CV Exhibit 9: Schemb CV Exhibit 10: WDFW e-mail from March 10, 2014 Exhibit 11: Army Corps e-mail from March 10, 2014 Exhibit 12: Final habitat mitigation assessment, March, 2014 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 11:00 a.m. at Federal Way City Hall on March 14, 2014. Substantive: 3. Site/Pro oral Description. The applicant has requested approval of a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance in order to construct a bulkhead and beach access stair for the Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center, located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road. The shoreline variance is to exceed the height requirement of FWRC 15.05.050(2)(b)(i), which prohibits bulkheads from exceeding a height of one foot above Mean High Higher Water. The conditional use permit is required for the bulkhead because it is proposed within an area designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy. More specifically, the applicant is proposing replacement of a 45-foot wood/creosote bulkhead with a new rock bulkhead of 45 feet in length, construction of new soft shore stabilization of 50 feet in length (25 feet on either end of the 45-foot rock bulkhead), and repair/replacement of a portion of an existing stair damaged in recent storm events. The applicant also proposes shoreline restoration by proposing to remove a derelict dolphin pile structure, a partially submerged barge, a rubber tire bulkhead, and other debris (Exhibit B). The shoreline substantial Shoreline Permits p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation development permit is required for the proposed beach access stair and soft shoreline armoring that will adjoin the bulkhead. The subject property is located on approximately 36 acres west of Dumas Bay on Puget Sound in Federal Way, Washington, and is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. The main retreat center structures are all outside the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction and have been in place for over 50 years. The main structure, a retreat center, is set back about 75 feet from the top of the slope, and an existing fire lane is located between the retreat center and the top of the slope. A trail and stairway lead to the beach from the top of the slope. The stairs at the base of the slope are unsupported due to a recent slide. Beyond the slide area, the shoreline bank is unarmored, vegetated, and in a natural state. The site's shoreline extends over 700 feet along a predominantly north facing slope. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is surrounded by mostly single family dwellings and the property west of the site is owned by the Boy Scouts of America. 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal has been designed to minimize environmental impacts and will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. Cumulative impacts may prove to be marginally significant, but should be considered acceptable for this proposal given that the shoreline armoring is the minimum necessary to protect shoreline access that has been enjoyed for 50 years by a major land use. A. Minimized Impacts. The proposal has been subject to extensive third party and agency review and through extensive project revision and mitigation the applicant has succeeded in acquiring general consensus from all reviewing parties that impacts have been minimized. In November, 2013 when the bulkhead had been reduced from its initially proposed 380 feet to 190 feet and the soft shore armoring from 340 feet to 220 feet, the Landau third party reviewer was already able to conclude that the proposal was designed to minimize impacts, subject to the addition of monitoring and other revisions that have been incorporated into the final design and conditions of approval adopted by this decision. Ex. M, p. 6. One of the primary revisions advocated in the Landau review was reduction of the length of the hard and soft armoring. This was accomplished in the last set of project revisions, when the applicant further reduced the hard armoring to 45 feet and the soft armoring to 50 feet in order to satisfy Washington State Department of Wildlife ("WDFW") and Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") concerns over surf smelt habitat found at the project site. B. No Net Loss of Ecological Function. As mitigated, the proposal will not result in any net loss of ecological function. The mitigation measures required of the proposal are designed to restore and enhance shoreline functions. Required mitigation includes the removal of creosote pilings and debris in the beach, including tires and a decaying barge. Best management practices will be required during construction, which the Landau review concludes will minimize construction impacts. All proposed mitigation will be Shoreline Permits p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation done at the project site to directly address and minimize project impacts. Vegetation disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and the planting plan provides for full compensation of any lost vegetation with native vegetation. The Landau review determined that "the mitigation may not assure the proposed armoring results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions", Ex. M, p. 8, because the proposed armoring at the time increased the amount of armoring from 7% to 50%. Since the proposal has since been significantly reduced to the current length of hard armoring and only 50 feet of soft armoring, it appears more likely than not that the proposal now meets the no net loss standard. It is noteworthy that even when 190 feet of hard armoring was proposed, the applicant's 2012 habitat assessment concluded that the project would not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, see Ex. F, Section 5.1.3. The no net loss findings of the consultant are fairly clear even from a lay perspective. As a general observation, it can be concluded that the bulkhead likely improves upon present conditions because the proposed bulkhead will be limited to the same length as the existing bulkhead with the added benefit of relocating the bulkhead from waterward of the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM") to landward of the OHWM and replacing the creosote treated materials with rock. The proposed 50 foot soft armoring extends the length of total beach armoring, but the impacts of the soft armoring are nominal and the armoring creates an environmental benefit by reducing end point erosion from the hard armoring. The applicant's 2013 geotechnical report also noted that the soft armoring will not stop toe erosion and that sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment. The 2012 geotechnical report also concluded that the proposal would not interfere with the movement of groundwater. See Ex. G. C. Water quality and _run-off. Several measures are incorporated into the project to protect water quality. Mitigation measures include best management practices for stormwater management. The hard armoring rock is equipped with free -draining backfill to allow water to flow off the rock wall. The stairway is a non -pollution generating surface. The proposal will be constructed in a naturally vegetated area that allows for water to sheet flow off the slope to the beach. The hard and soft armoring will not interfere with the passage of ground and surface waters because the rock bulkhead is designed to allow water to move through the rocks and the soft armoring, composed of anchored logs, would also not significantly obstruct the free flow of water. D. Critical Areas. The only critical areas at the project sit are steep slopes; erosion and landslide hazard areas; frequently flooded areas (the project is in a 100 year floodplain) and adjoining endangered salmon habitat. Other than the endangered salmon, there were no endangered or protected species or species habitat found at the location of the proposed structures, although several protected species and habitat are located in the vicinity of the project as detailed in Chapter 5 of the applicant's final habitat assessment, Ex. 12. Impacts of building the bulkhead, stairway and soft armoring along the geological hazardous areas have been fully addressed in the geotechnical reports and associated peer review for the proposal. As previously discussed, impacts to the aquatic Shoreline Permits p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation habitat of the endangered salmon have been thoroughly minimized via mitigation and project design. With the recommended conditions of approval in the habitat assessment (required by this decision), the final habitat assessment, Ex. 12, concluded that the proposal is not anticipated to adversely affect ESA listed species or floodplain function. E. Adjoining Property Owners. The proposal will not significantly adversely affect adjoining property owners. Aesthetic impacts are minor as the hard armoring only takes up a small percentage of the applicant's shoreline and at the bulkhead is more than 35 feet from the closest property line as shown in the site plan, Ex. B. Endpoint erosion' is adequately addressed through the installation of soft armoring on both sides of the bulkhead and the relocation of the bulkhead from the adjoining west property line to at least 35 feet east of that line. No other adverse impacts to neighboring properties are reasonably discerned from the record. F. Navigation_ and Public Use. No part of the proposal will extend waterward of the OHWM, except for perhaps some inconsequential portions of the soft armoring. No significant impact to navigation or other public use of the shorelines is anticipated. G. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are a valid concern for any bulkhead. As noted in the Landau third party review, bulkheads can cause significant impacts to beaches by disrupting sediment transport, especially in littoral drift zones (which is present at the project site). Ex. M, p. 20. Further, the Landau review references an ESA Adolfson report that recommends retention of armored beaches for shorelines west of Dumas Bay (which includes the project site). Id. The Landau concerns were expressed in reviewing the proposal when it involved 190 feet of hard armoring and 220 feet of soft armoring. The fact that this amount of armoring comprised 50% of the project shoreline appears to have played a significant factor in Landau's concerns over cumulative impacts. The final design only totals 50 feet in armoring and it is difficult to speculate whether this small amount of armoring would still be a concern to Landau. However, given that as previously discussed the proposal constitutes an improvement over the existing bulkhead from an environmental perspective and also that the extensive mitigation serves to restore, enhance and rehabilitate shoreline functions, it can reasonably be concluded that the cumulative impacts may not be significant. Given that the armoring is the minimum necessary to protect the sole shoreline access for an entire retreat and conference center, it is appropriate to conclude that the cumulative impact, if any, are acceptable for this type of proposal. 6. Necessity of Bulkhead. Erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to the existing stairway. The applicants submitted a geotechnical report concluding that the stairs were subject to a clear and imminent threat from wave erosion. Ex. G. As noted in the geotechnical report, fresh scarping at the toe of the shoreline bluff are consistent with toe erosion that undercuts the lower portion of the bluff, resulting in regressive failures extending up the slope. A bulkhead is necessary to prevent this erosion from threatening the new proposed stairs. ' Endpoint erosion is the erosion that bulkheads cause at their endpoints. Shoreline Permits p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Third party geotechnical review, Ex. L, agreed that wave erosion presented a clear and imminent threat to the proposed stairs. However, the third party review recommended a different location for the hard armoring and stairs to prevent end point erosion that could adversely affect adjoining property. This change has been incorporated into the proposal by the applicant. The third party geotechnical review indicated that the 190 feet of hard armoring proposed in November, 2013 was not the minimum necessary to protect shoreline improvements. The record is unclear whether the reduction to 45 feet would satisfy the third party reviewers. However, given the significant reduction to existing bulkhead length it is determined that more likely than not the bulkhead constitutes the minimum necessary to protect the stairs. 7. Alternatives to Hard Armoring. There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed hard armoring. The 2012/revised 2013 habitat assessment, Ex. F, p. 12, concluded that soft armoring was not a viable alternative to the proposed hard armoring. The report noted that "[61ver several years the full soft armoring alternative is likely to result in structural failure at the base of the stairwell which may compromise the structural integrity of the stairwell further up the slope." The Landau review, Ex. M, and geotechnical third party review, Ex. L expressed no disagreement with this conclusion. DOE agreed that some hard armoring was necessary to protect the stairs. See Ex. K. Given the extensive slope failures at the site and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of the 2012/2013 habitat assessment on soft armoring appear sound. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposed rock armoring. The 2012/2013 habitat assessment did not explore other alternatives to hard armoring beyond using anchored logs. However, it is apparent that DOE did not believe that soft armoring or other alternatives would serve as an adequate substitute for all of the hard armoring. See Ex. K. Given the habitat assessment, the comments of DOE and the high wave energy of the site and instability of its slopes, it is determined that there is no nonstructural solution available to protect the stairs. 9. Uni ue Circumstances Necessitating Bulkhead Height Variance. The soils and topography of the project site make it uniquely unstable. The high instability of the slopes necessitates a variance to bulkhead height restrictions in order to adequately protect the slopes from wave erosion. According to the testimony of the applicant's geotechnical consultant, Keith Schembs, the project site is composed of unique soils that make its slopes uniquely unstable as compared to other shoreline bluffs in Federal Way. As noted at p. 5 of the applicant's geotechnical report, Ex. G, the USDA NRCS has mapped the steep shoreline bluff portion of the site as Alderwood/Kitsap soils. These soils have a "severe" hazard of water erosion when exposed. Given this comparatively high vulnerability to wave erosion, it is imperative that the bulkhead have a height sufficient to prevent waves from overcoming it. The third party review notes that the maximum tidal height observed at the project site is 14.6 feet and that the currently existing bulkhead is 14.8 feet in height and was overtopped by waves. Ex. M, p. 15 and 16. FWRC Shoreline Permits P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 15.05.050(2)(b)(i) sets the maximum height at 12.8 feet. The applicant proposes a height of 16.4 feet in order to prevent waves from reaching the vulnerable soils protected by the bulkhead. The Landau review, Ex. M, p. 17, essentially concurred that the height proposed by the applicant is the minimum necessary to provide for adequate protection given the failure of the current bulkhead to prevent overtopping and the prevalence of recent Puget Sound "king tide" events. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: Shoreline conditional use and variance applications are processed as Type IV applications. See FWRC 15.05.160(2) and 15.05.170(2). Shoreline substantial development permits are processed as Type III permits. See FWRC 15.05.150(2). All three applications have been consolidated under a single Process IV review as authorized by FWRC 19.15.060. FWRC 19.70.150 provides that the Examiner shall issue a written decision on Process IV applications. FWRC 19.70.210 provides that the Examiner's decision is appealable to the City Council. Substantive: 2. Shoreline Designation: Urban Conservancy. 3. Review Criteria and Application. A shoreline substantial development permit is required for the beach stairs and soft armoring requested by the applicant. A shoreline conditional use permit is required for the proposed bulkhead because FWRC 15.05.050(1) requires a conditional use permit for bulkheads in the urban conservancy shoreline designation. A shoreline variance is required because the applicant seeks to exceed the maximum bulkhead height imposed by FWRC 15.05.050(2)(b)(i). Shoreline substantial development criteria are set by FWRC 15.05.150(3), shoreline conditional use criteria are set by FWRC 15.05.170(4) and variance criteria are set by FWRC 15.05.160(3). All applicable criteria, including generic criteria that apply to all Process IV decisions, are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. FWRC 15.05.150(3) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Criteria A substantial development permit shall be granted by the director only when the development proposed is consistent with the following: (a) Goals, objectives, policies, and use regulations of the Federal Way shoreline master program; 4. The proposed soft armoring and beach stairs are consistent with the Federal Way shoreline master program. The Findings of Fact of this decision include all of the factual determinations necessary to establish compliance with the master program provisions. The conclusion that the proposal satisfies Federal Way's master program is largely based upon Shoreline Permits P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation the excellent shoreline program compliance analysis in the Landau third party review, Ex. M. This decision adopts the findings and conclusions of the Landau review, to the extent they apply to the current version of the proposal unless otherwise addressed in this Conclusion of Law or the Findings of Fact of this decision. There are three primary areas in the Landau analysis that are not adopted by this decision because they were based upon a prior version of the proposal. At the time of the Landau review, the applicant still proposed 190 feet of hard armoring and 220 feet of soft armoring. The only significant instances where the Landau analysis found noncompliance where due to (1) the conclusion that armoring 50% of the shoreline was not the minimum necessary to protect upland structures; (2) as proposed at the time, the hard armoring adjoined the western property line, creating a risk of end point erosion on the adjoining property; and (3) the 50% armoring would create cumulative impacts by interrupting sediment transport from the bluff and would also contravene a study concluding that unarmored beaches in the project area should be preserved. The proposal as approved by this decision adequately addresses the three concerns raised by the Landau analysis. The project has been reduced from a total of 410 feet of hard and soft armoring to a total of 95 feet of hard and soft armoring. As detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5, the reduction of the hard armoring in particular to 45 feet is sufficient to conclude that the proposal is designed to minimize shoreline impacts and also to assure no net loss in shoreline ecological functions. These findings eliminate any adverse findings made by Landau on the basis of the length of the armoring. Since the Landau analysis the hard armoring has also been moved away from the side property lines and end point erosion has been mitigated by the placement of the soft armoring at both end points. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 (E), this redesign is sufficient to address any Landau concerns on end point erosion impacts to adjoining property owners. Cumulative impacts are still a moderate concern, but as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), the cumulative impacts are at an acceptable level for this type of proposal. In addition to the three major concerns raised by Landau as discussed above, the Landau analysis also identified a couple other areas of inconsistency that need to be addressed. SMPP8(b) states that all development "should" be prohibited in shoreline areas of severe or very severe landslide hazard. For this proposal, it is concluded that the policy is not violated. It is unclear whether the project site qualifies as a "severe" or "very severe" landslide hazard, but given the past landslide activity and the high erosion hazard associated with the soils of the slope (see Finding of Fact No. 9), it appears that the hazard should be characterized as severe or very severe. Given (1) that the proposal has enjoyed beach access for 50 years, (2) the access serves a fairly intense land use that probably serves a large number of people, and (3) staff is recommending approval, it is concluded that the permissive "should" does not prohibit the proposed shoreline development in this case. This is an issue that should not be taken lightly, as there could potentially be significant cumulative impacts associated with allowing all single family homes the opportunity to install hard armoring to protect beach stairs. On balance, the significant impacts associated with hard armoring may not always be worth assuming for the recreational benefit of stairs. The Landau review also questioned compliance with SMPP36, which states that shoreline stabilization "should" not reduce the volume and storage capacity of flood plains. The Landau Shoreline Permits P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation review questioned whether the support rock would qualify as fill within a floodplain. It is unclear from the record whether the rock will be located within the floodplain, because subsequent to the Landau review the bulkhead was moved from waterward of the OHWM to landward of the OHWM. Further, since the rocks are set back into the bluff, it is also unclear whether any flood capacity would be affected by the proposal. However, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the proposal will not adversely affect flood plain function. Given the minor encroachment into the floodplain, if any, and the absence of any adverse impacts to floodplain function, it is determined that the proposal is consistent with SMPP36 under the "should" language, since any reduction in volume or storage capacity would be minor and would not impair floodplain function. (b) Federal Way comprehensive plan and city code; and 5. The comprehensive plan designates the project site as Single -Family Low Residential and the property is zoned Suburban Estates. Beach stairs and hard and soft armoring are allowed in these comprehensive plan and zoning code designations. Stormwater and building code compliance will be addressed during building permit review. There are no other potential compliance issues discernible from the record. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and city code. (3) The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC). 6. The policies and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act are largely concerned with assuring that shoreline ecological functions and public shoreline access and navigation are not adversely affected by shoreline development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal minimizes environmental impacts, does not result in a net reduction of shoreline ecological functions and does not adversely affect navigation and public use of the shorelines. For these reasons, the proposal is consistent with the policies, guidelines and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act. FWRC 15.05.170(4) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Criteria Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent with the following criteria: (a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the shoreline master program; 7. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and 6, the proposal is consistent with the shoreline master program and the Shoreline Management Act. (the discussion on these issues regarding the soft armoring and stairs is equally applicable to the hard armoring). (b) The use will not interfere with normal use of public shorelines; 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), the proposal will not interfere with normal public Shoreline Permits p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation use of the shorelines. (c) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area; 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal minimizes environmental impacts, will not result in a net reduction of shoreline ecological functions and will not adversely affect neighboring property owners. The criterion is met. (d) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not result in a net reduction of shoreline ecological functions and the proposal will also provide beach access to a major land use that has enjoyed beach access for fifty years. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (e) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. 11. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), the cumulative impacts of the proposal are at an acceptable level for this type of proposal. FWRC 15.05.160(3) Variance Criteria (3) A variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply: (a) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; 12. Beach access for a shoreline property, especially one that has enjoyed such access for fifty years, should be considered a reasonable use of property. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 9, the requested height variance is necessary to adequately protect this beach access. Without the height variance, waves will overtop the bulkhead and destabilize the slopes upon which the stairs will be constructed. The criterion is met. (b) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions; 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 9, the hardship in this case is specifically related to the unstable soils of the property, which are highly susceptible to water erosion and unique to the project site. The criterion is met. Shoreline Permits p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; 14. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely affect adjoining properties, minimizes impacts and will not create a net reduction in shoreline ecological function. The criterion is met. (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of specialprivilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief,• 15. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 9, the proposed height is the minimum necessary to prevent destabilization of the slopes underlying the beach stairs and hence is the minimum necessary to afford relieve. Approval of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege since waterfront properties generally have shoreline access. Similarly situated major land uses that have also enjoyed long term shoreline access would also likely qualify for a variance. The criterion is met. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 16. A variance in this instance would only allow a modest increase in bulkhead height that would generally not be noticeable by any adjoining uses or public users of the shoreline. The increase in height may create some marginal increase in shading impacts and blocking of overhanging vegetation, but such impacts do not appear to have any significance. At the same time the added height will prevent the collapse of beach access stairs, which can lead to both property damage and personal injury, as well as triggering the need for more shoreline work. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect by the proposal. 09 That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and 17. The only portion of the proposal waterward of the ordinary high water mark may be some of the anchored logs that will constitute the soft armoring. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), the proposal will not adversely affect public use or navigation of the shoreline. The proposal does not encroach into any wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs or swamps. The criterion is met. (g) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline. 18. It is not apparent what adverse impacts would be associated with an increase in height, except as previously speculated potentially an increase in shade impacts and blocking of overhanging vegetation. The Landau third review, Ex. M, found no adverse impacts associated with the increase in height. Consequently it does not appear that any cumulative impacts would be associated with approval of the variance. Shoreline Permits p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria, FWRC 19.70.150(3): (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 19. As previously determined, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws. 20. As previously determined, the proposal is consistent with all applicable City code provisions. (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 21. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal minimizes environmental impacts, does not result in a net reduction of shoreline ecological functions and does not adversely affect navigation. For these reasons, the proposal is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. 22. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the streets and utilities that already serve the retreat and conference center would be inadequate to serve the shoreline improvements nor could it reasonably be presumed otherwise. (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access. 23. Not applicable. (fl Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated. 24. Not applicable. DECISION The shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance for the revised proposal as depicted in Exhibit B and described in this decision is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any work associated with this application, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation and monitoring plan that incorporates all proposed construction impact mitigation measures and shoreline restoration/mitigation actions outlined on the overall March 4, 2014, site plan (Exhibit B); in the July 2013 Shoreline Permits p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Soundview Consultants Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report; and the September 2013 GeoResources Geological Hazards Assessment. These mitigation measures shall be reflected in applicable construction related documents for review and approval by city staff, and include verification/peer review funded by the applicant. 2. The final mitigation and monitoring plan specified in Condition 1 above shall incorporate a plan for providing for beach nourishment per WDFW requirements to ensure that decreases in sediment transport from the bulkhead do not adversely impact the beach habitat functions. Monitoring of the site shall be provided as appropriate to determine the extent of beach nourishment needed and to determine if the mitigation has restored and maintained ecological functions to compensate for the hard armoring impacts. 3. Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any work associated with this application, construction documents shall clearly indicate how the requirements of FWRC 15.05.090(3)(e), "Vegetation Conservation Area," specifying a maximum of 15 percent of shoreline vegetation clearing and a minimum retention of 80 percent of native trees within the designated 50 foot minimum shoreline setback area is satisfied. 4. Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any work associated with this application, the applicant shall modify the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report (Exhibit F) as necessary to meet the minimum requirements of the Biological Opinion as required by FEMA for development located within a designated floodplain area. Dated this 28th day of March 2014. C � Kiii-f A.Olbrech[s Hearing Examiner City of Federal Way Right of Appeal This decision may be appealed to the City Council as governed by FWRC 19.70.170, which provides as follows: 19.70.170 Appeals of the hearing examiner's decision. (1) Who may appeal. The decision of the hearing examiner, which is not the final decision of the city, may be appealed by the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the hearing examiner, persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision, or by the city. (2) How and when to appeal. A written notice of appeal must be delivered to the department within 14 calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director. The appeal must be accompanied by cash or a check, payable to the city of Federal Way, in the amount of the fee as established by the city. The notice of appeal must contain: Shoreline Permits p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation (a) A statement identifying the decision being appealed, along with a copy of the decision; (b) A statement of the alleged errors in the hearing examiner's decision, including specific factual findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner disputed by the person filing the appeal; and (c) The appellant's name, address, telephone number and fax number, and any other information to facilitate communications with the appellant. (3) Transcript. The appellant shall either pay an amount sufficient to cover the cost of preparing the written transcript of the hearing examiner hearing, at the cost of $16.00 per hour, or make separate arrangements to prepare the transcript from tapes of the hearing provided by the city, at appellant's sole cost. The prepared transcript shall be submitted to the city hearing examiner secretary for distribution no later than 20 days prior to the date of the hearing on appeal, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit or certification by the appellant as to the accuracy and completeness of the transcript. The cost of the transcript shall be refunded to the appellant if the appellant substantially prevails on appeal. The city council shall decide whether appellant substantially prevailed on appeal and that decision shall be final. The transcript refund shall be limited to actual costs of transcript preparation as follows: (a) City staff preparation. Hourly cost of preparation. (b) Appellant preparation from tapes. Actual costs as shown by certified receipt or other evidence sufficient to the city. (4) Jurisdiction. Appeals from the decision of the hearing examiner will be heard by city council. CHANGE IN VALUATION Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Shoreline Permits p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation From: 2538352609 Page: 1/4 Date: 10/26/2012 3:36:52 PM CITY OF Federal Way GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: September 27, 2012 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community and Economic Development 33325 86 Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Edward J Heavey., PE via Theresa Turpin Landau Associates, Inc. 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Project: Palisades (Archibishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stair Replacement File No's: 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Project Proponent: Ed Foster Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 9" Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-382-4851 Project Planner: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP (253-835-2644) Documents Provided: a One copy of a July 31, 2012, site plan o One copy of a July 31, 2012, report titled, "Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Resoration" prepared by GeoResources, LLC. o One copy of an Environmental Checklist prepared by Dale Yeager ❑ One copy of an August. 2012, report titled, "Shoreline Permits Consistency Report Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) Shoreline Stabili7ztion and Stair Repair" prepared by Yeager Associates o One copy of an August 2012, report titled, "Fish &Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs" prepared by Soundview Consultants o One copy of a July 31, 2012, technical memo titled, "Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA" prepared by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. a One set of August 1, 2012aolor photographs with overview page n«.rn. sc,e F&91z-LM]24 -= From: 2538352609 Page: 2/4 Date: 10/26/2012 3:36:52 PM Task Scope: The applicant proposes to replace the lower portion of an existing beach access stair and replace a timber pile bulkhead with a new rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring. The site is within the Shoreline Urban ConservancY environment and bulkheads are only allowed with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the applicant is proposing a bulkhead that exceeds the nuo mum height limit. The increased bulkhead height may only be permitted via a Shoreline Variance. Both. the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance applications will be reviewed under Process IV, Hearing Examiner land use review. This task scope requests the following: 1) Review submitted documents for conformance with the following provisions of FWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management"' • Section 15.05.040, "General Development Standards"; + Section 15.05.050(l), "Shoreline Modifications" for the proposed bulkhead"; ■ Section 15.05.160, "Shoreline Variance,,, including analysis as to whether the proposed variance meets the criteria specified in 15.05.160(3); and • Section 15.05.170, "Conditional Uses," including analysis as to whether the proposed bulkhead meets the criteria for approving 9 conditional use as specified in 15.05.170(4). 2) Provide technical memorandum(s) identifying any additional information requested as necessary. 3) Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 4) Possible meetings on site and/or with applicant's geowchnical engineer and/or environmental comltaats. 5) Provide written technical memorandums) regarding the proposal's conformance with. the FWRC. 6) Attend one Hearing Examiner Public Hearing. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by October 12, 2012. 06 Task Cost: Not to exceed 5 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task amount to be filled in by planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filled out including the total work estimate and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Accepts cc: L'i of Fed ref Way Planner Date ID i� Consultant Date Project Pr nent Date Doe. ID. 0249 From: 2538352609 Page: 3/4 Date: 10/26/2012 3:36:53 PM z D C 9 I N r 0 N m W N ' iG a C m m N p D (gyp y o D r F m n a �. 7 a Q 8 � O � � 'w- � 2 m D r $ a 3 z o m c c o N S m .Fi 3 C a > Q 3 N in N � O A N N O W N O O [f i O O O (A In b9 O A N N O C.)N V n -ram 0 0 0 �:3 0 - m W o � 0 0 ° 0 m 0 0 0 to N n O O O O ago N D 0 m O 0 0 0 4 A }J+ O O O to co O ~ _ N N N N w C 9 N O IQ O b i Q � J � O CD �C fig v) O cyl V Pi V� ? A W O m z to 4A 3 o o c " Q 0 ,o� O >a O 69 Q� O A O ppNp� 01 O N A 97 C W RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT O(G FEB 252013 February 22, 2013 City of Federal Way 33325 8 h Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98063-6325 Attn: Janet Schull RE: INVOICE PALISADES RETREAT BULKHEAD AND STAIR REPLACEMENT THIRD PARTY REVIEW LANDAU ASSOCIATES Dear Ms. Schull: Attached is our invoice for work conducted through February 2, 2013 on the Palisades Retreat Bulkhead third party review. Work covered under this invoice includes project management. We trust this provides you with the necessary information to process Invoice 30994. If you have questions or require additional information please contact me at (253) 284-4876. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Theresa M. Turpin, AICP Associate Planner TMT/jrc 2/22/13 Y:\236\062.010\MTWAY invoice 02212013.doex Attachment: Invoice 30994 ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 . Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landouinc.com PMAnAIM IrnOP(ID AM. CFATTIC . TArn-A . Tol-1 . conv.— - —1 .urn LANDAU ASSOCIATES February 15, 2013 Invoice No: 30994 Janet Shull City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave..South Federal Way, WA 98063-6325 Project No. 0238062.010 Palisades Retreat Bulkhead and Stair Replacement PMfessfunal_S_e_ryices through February 02, 2013 Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Associate Turpin, Theresa 1.00 167.00 167.00 Project Coordinator Cooley, Juliann .25 87.00 21.75 Dodson, Dennis .25 87.00 21.75 Ortiz, Jill .25 87A0 21.75 Support Staff Mott, Sierra .75 65.00 48.75 Totals 2.50 281.00 Total Labor 281.00 Unit Billing Postal Service .45 Total Units .45 .45 BUDGET LIMITS Current Prior To -Date Total Billings 281.45 2,209.05 2,490.50 Budget 4,194.00 Remaining Budget 1,703.50 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE $281.45 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 30914 1/16/2013 2,209.05 Total 2,209.05 TOTAL AMOUNT $2,490.50 NOW DUE: Billings to Date Current Prior Total Labor 281.00 2,192.50 2,473.50 Unit .45 16.55 17.00 l Totals 281.45 2,209.05 2,490.50 Thank You Payable Upon Receipt ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 (800) 552-5957 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA KENNEWICK • SPOKANE • PORTLAND 4 CITY OF Federal March 15, 2013 Ms. Dale Yeager Yeager Associates 14323 116'h Avenue East Puyallup, WA 98374 CITY HALL Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www atyoffederalway. com FILE Re: File #12-103812-00-SII; REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stairway; 4700 SW Dash Point Road Dear Ms. Yeager: Third -party technical review of the proposed bulkhead, soft shore armoring and stair repair and supportive materials has been completed by Landau Associates and reviewed by staff. You were provided with an electronic copy of the report on Wednesday, March 61h. As you are aware, the next step in the city's review process is issuance of a SEPA decision. Upon consideration of the third party technical review within the context of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the application materials do not demonstrate that 380 feet of hard shore armoring (rock bulkhead) and 340 feet of soft shore armoring are necessary to address an imminent threat to existing site improvements. In order to issue a SEPA decision on the proposal, we are requesting that you modify the shoreline stabilization elements of your proposal to either: ■ Limit the scope to just the elements that are responsive to the "imminent threat" to the existing beach access stair; or Revise the analysis to clearly demonstrate how the entire proposed hard and soft shore armoring is necessary to address an imminent threat (imminent is defined as within three years) to existing site improvements. We cannot issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) or Modified Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on a proposal that is not approvable under our development regulations, and for which mitigation is not identifiable. Based on the application materials submitted and the third -party technical review report, it appears that 150 feet of bulkhead is being proposed to address the "imminent threat" to the beach access stairway and therefore, should be the maximum amount considered unless the application is modified to clearly support how the greater shoreline armoring- is necessary to address the imminent threat. File 4 12-103812-00-SH Doc, LD. 63140 Ms. Date Yeager Page 2 of 3 March 15, 2013 Furthermore, the following additional information is required to complete the evaluation of the proposal and issue a SEPA determination: As required by 1~WRC 15.05.050(1)(a)(i), the geotechnical report should be revised to provide an estimate of the rate of erosion on the subject site. • Please provide analysis that the mitigation proposed will fully compensate for potential interruption in sediment transport that may result from the construction of hard armoring. Just simply stating that no impact is anticipated is not an adequate analysis. ■ Please provide a copy of your JARPA that is referenced as an exhibit to the SEPA checklist. We did not receive a copy of the JARPA with the checklist submittal. Please provide four copies of your resubmittal items along with the enclosed resubmittal form. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter or project status, please contact me at 253-835-2644, or janet.shull@cityoff_ederalwa .com. Sincerely, reen Associate Enclosure: Resubmittal Form File 912-103812-00-SH Doc. LD 63140 CITY OF A. Federal September 19, 2012 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityofiederalway. com Mr. Ed Foster Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 9ch Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Re: File#12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Notice of Complete Application; Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stair Replacement; 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Dear Mr. Foster: The Department of Community Development Services is in receipt of your August 17, 2012, Process III Shoreline Substantial Development, SEPA Application, Process IV Shoreline Variance, and Process IV Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Master Land Use application. The applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, and shoreline conditional use permit under Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 15.05.150, FWRC 15.05.160, and FWRC 15.05.1-70, respectively, for the -- construction of a bulkhead within a Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment that exceeds the maximum allowable height. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Please consider this correspondence a formal Letter of Complete Application based on the submittal requirements for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Process III Project Approval, and Process IV Hearing Examiner Approval. A 120-day time line for reviewing the project has started as of this date. The city has 120 days from the date that an application is deemed complete to take action on the application. Please be advised that the 120-day review time will stop whenever the city or agencies with jurisdiction request corrections, additional studies, or information. The 120-day review time will be re -started within 14 days from the date the requested information has been provided to the city. Final approval on the shoreline variance and shoreline conditional use applications will be rendered by the Washington State Department of Ecology, following the hearing examiner decision. Having met the submittal requirements, a Notice of Application will be published in the Federal Way Mirror, posted on the city's official notice boards, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The applicant is responsible for posting a notification board prepared by the city. The cost of the board i� $40.00, payable at the permit counter. You will be notified when the board is ready for you to pick up e the permit center Will Call desk. It is your responsibility to ensure the sign is installed at the site withi File # 12-103812-SH D` Mr. Ed Foster Page 2 of 3 September 19, 2012 14 days of issuance of this letter and you must remove the sign within 7 days of the final decision of the city on this matter. The sign must be installed in the most visible location along the SW Dash Point Road frontage (I have enclosed an instructional handout). THIRD-PARTYiE KCAL' EVCEW REQUIRED Third -party reVitrvwyviQ' be r�uired for the geotechnical and habitat assessment reports. We are routing the application documents to LAdau and Associates for an estimate for this review. Upon receipt of their fee estimate, we will route the estimate to you for approval and payment to commence the third -party review. CLOSING If you have any questions regarding your project, please contact me at janet.shull@cityoffederalway.com, or 253-835-2644. Sincerely, Jan t Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate for Planner Enc: Bulletin 035, `Instructions for Public Notice Sign' Bulletin 036, 'Sign Installation Certificate' c: Scott Sproul, Building Plans Examiner Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer File H12-103812-SH Doc ID 62126 Syr er�� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 4uma 1600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 Refer to NMFS No: March 26, 2014 NWR 2013-10558 Michelle Walker Chief, Regulatory Branch Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Attn: Randel Perry Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead Replacement and Beach Access Stair Repair (NWS-2012-860), Federal Way, Pierce County, Washington (6'h Field HUC 171100190204, Lat: 471328143, Long:-122.392725). Dear Ms. Walker: n On September 6, 20ff , the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received your request for aG,Akeflreoncurrence that the US" 'Army Corps o-fT-ngineexs TOE) proposed action to permit, "a&detlhe Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean. Water Act (CWA), the mitigatioit associated- with the installation of a replacement bulkhead and beach stair access repair is not likely to 1 adversely affect (NLAA) species listed as threatened or endangered, or critical habitats designated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This response to your request was prepared by NMFS pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402, and agency guidance for preparation of letters of concurrence.l NMFS also reviewed the proposed action for potential effects on essential fish habitat (EFH) designated under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), including conservation measures and any determination that you made regarding the potential effects of the action. This review was pursuant to section 305(b) of the MSA, implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920, and agency guidance for use of the ESA consultation process to complete EFII consultation. 1 Memorandum from D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, to ESA consultation biologists (guidance on informal consultation and preparation of letters of concurrence) (January 30, 2006). 2 Memorandum from William T. Hogarth, Acting Administrator for Fisheries, to Regional Administrators (national finding for use of Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation process to complete essential fish habitat consultations) (February 28, 2001). This letter underwent pre -dissemination review using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal year 2001, Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon -Washington Coastal Area Office in Lacey, Washington - Proposed Action and the Action Area `Action' means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies. The COE proposes to permit intertidal clean-up actions in association with the installation of a bulkhead replacement and the replacement of a beach access stair repair located between mean higher high water (MHHW) and highest astronomical tide (HAT), The mitigation actions proposed for permitting include the;removal of 3 creosote treated dolphin piles, 40 creosote treated piles that composed a small bulkhead for the existing staircase landing, the remains of a derelict untreated wood barge, and various debris and refuse that has accumulated on the beach. The property is located along a bluff backed beach along the eastern shore of Puget Sound in Federal Way, Washington. Creosote treated piles will be removed completely or cut 2 feet below the mudline if unable to be fully extracted. For consultation purposes, the effects of two interdependent actions in the upper intertidal are included in the analysis of effects: constructing 45 feet of new near vertical riprap bulkhead to r replace a failed creosote treated pile bulkhead, with 25 feet of soft armoring on both sides of the riprap amnoring; and rebuilding the beach access stairs. In order to construct the new bulkhead, some riparian trees will be removed. The be within the footprint of the Y%O+ existing bulkhead. Oc� uA act► Included in the proposed action is a planting plan that will increase the amount of native vegetation in the riparian zone and increase the number of trees for slope stabilization and to provide riparian and nearshore habitat function over the long term. Also included is beach nourishment of up to eight cubic yards with local sediment, supplemented with similar offsite materials if necessary. The proposed project is located in Federal Way, Pierce County, Washington (6t' Field HUC 171100190204, Lat: 47.328136, Long:-122.392347). The action area for this project includes the intertidal beach and waters within 150 feet of the project footprint to include areas of increased turbidity and sound disturbance from project activities. The action area also includes submerged aquatic vegetation and documented forage fish spawning habitat_ The action area contains designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon. Designated PS Chinook salmon critical habitat in Puget Sound is water -ward of the extreme high tide line (same as HAT). That tidal elevation varies by location and is typically about 1.5 to 2.6 feet above mean high water (MHHW). At the project site under this review, NMFS has determined the HAT at Federal Way (i.e., the highest predicted tide in the 19 year tidal cycle) to be 13.8 feet, 2 which is 2 feet above MHHW, and 2.9 feet above mean high water (MHW). Accordingly, NMFS has assessed potential effects on designated critical habitat separate from the COE's choice of MHFIW to define the `high tide line' for Clean Water Act permitting. Consultation History This consultation is based on the information provided in the May 2012 Biological Evaluation (BE), a geologic hazards assessment, site plan, habitat assessment, revised geologic hazards assessments, revised habitat assessments, telephone conversations, e-mails, meetings, and field investigations. Consultation was requested by the United States Corps of Engineers (COE) on September 6, 2013. By letter of September 23, 2013, NMFS did not concur with the COE's request and sought more information to start formal consultation. Reasons for non -concurrence were, "Likely adverse effects of the action include long-term loss of overhanging trees and shrubs -horn construction of the bulkhead resulting in a loss of diffuse shading and prey input .r into the nearshore; reduction or elimination of sediment supply within the drift cells; reduction in' the quality and availability of forage fish spawning habitat; and short term disturbance of substrate along the 410 feet of the toe of the bulkhead." The initiation package was completed on December 18,2013, and consultation was initiated on this same date. Additional revisions to the project were made during consultation, resulting in changes that greatly reduced the potential for effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. The revised design ultimately matched recommendations from N WS to prevent loss of critical habitat and adverse effects on listed species. "A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon and Washington Coast Area Office located in Lacey, Washington_ The COE determined that the proposed actions were not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound (PS) Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, or designated critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon. NMFS did not concur with these determinations for the project as proposed (see above). The interdependent action of installing new shoreline armoring underwent several iterations and revisions, until ultimately the bulkhead became solely a replacement structure' for the existing bulkhead, instead of creating new shoreline armoring, and NMFS was able to concur with the" COE determination for listed species. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Effects of the Action Under the ESA, "effects of the action" means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the listed species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action (50 CFR 402.02). The applicable standard to find that a proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat is that all of the effects of the action are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or critical habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. iBeneficial effects of the project include riparian plantings that will increase riparian function over the baseline over the long term, removal of creosote -treated pilings which will reduce the input of contaminants in the project area, removal of artificial debris, and the partial removal of a derelict barge which may reduce a barrier to sediment transport in the drift cell. Listed species of fish are not likely to occur near the project when work is occurring. For listed salmonids, the work window (July 16 to February 15) decreases the likelihood of occurrence for juvenile salmonids. Removal of the existing bulkhead, barge, pilings, and debris will result in short term disturbance to the substrate from the movement of personnel and equipment and from direct disturbance by removal of pilings and objects. Increases in suspended sediment from substrate disturbance are expected to be small, localized, and of short duration, and will not reach the level or duration which would cause physiologically adverse impacts on listed species. A small amount of riparian vegetation will also be removed from the project site, resulting in the temporary loss of nutrient and prey inputs into the marine nearshore environment, until new riparian plantings can grow to a size to replace these functions. Because listed species are very unlikely to be present in the area of project effects, and the potential for effects if encountered is quite limited, NMFS has determined that potential for effects on listed species is not likely to adversely affect. Also,,NWS has concluded that the drift cells that compose the headland shoreline will remain mostly functional with no increase in amount of armored shoreline. The action area for the proposed action contains nearshore critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon. NMFS analyzed the potential for the permit and interdependent actions to change: riparian vegetation functions; water quality during construction and long-term; sediment supply within the drift cells; reduction in the quality and availability of forage fish spawning habitat; and, excessive disturbance of substrate along the toe of the bulkhead. The short term loss of a small amount of riparian vegetation will be offset by improved water quality and the addition of native plantings that will. improve riparian function above the baseline over the long term. The proposed action will create very short term modifications to water quality through increased noise and marginal increases in turbidity for minutes to hours associated with each tidal inundation after bulkhead and removal work has occurred. While the existing bulkhead will effectively be made more permanent through reconstruction, the use of inert materials to replace creosote will result in improved water quality. Sediment inputs and transport will be maintained by not expanding the length of armored shoreline: Sandy spawning habitat for forage fish (i.e., surf smelt) will be maintained by not expanding the length of armored shoreline as well as adding beach materials (up to eight cubic yards). Beach substrate will be minimally disturbed by carefully removing old plies and woody materials and not expanding the length of armored shoreline. Thus, function will be maintained for the primary constituent elements for PS Chinook and SRKW, and the potential for effects on critical habitat function is insignificant and discountable- 4 Conclusion Based on the above analysis, NMFS concurs with the COE that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the subject listed species and designated critical habitats. Secton 7(a)(1) Conservation Recommendations Notably, the Seattle District COE is not including on the proposed permit the construction of the new bulkhead in designated critical habitat_ Generally, the Seattle District and the greater Northwest Division have asserted that all bulkheads and shoreline actions built above MHHW, but below HAT, are outside their permit authority under the CWA. We note the CWA defines the upper limit of tidal jurisdiction as the "high tide line, (which) means the line of intersection of the land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide." (33 CFR §328.3(d). Tidal waters are also defined in 33 CFR §328.3 (f) as, "those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects." Instead of searching for an accurate way to use tidal information to establish the limit of tidal . jurisdiction, the local COE continues to use MHHW, while ignoring the fact that MHHW is predictably exceeded several times every month This differs from the Alaska District COE which has a similar tidal pattern to Puget Sound (mixed semidiurnal tides) and apparently uses HAT as the jurisdiction for CWA permits. Apparently individual COE districts use discretion in choosing limits of tidal jurisdiction By insisting that MHWW equates to the `high tide line,' the Seattle District of the COE has chosen a jurisdiction that leaves 1.5 to 2.5 vertical feet of critical, habitat throughout Puget Sound unprotected through CWA permit authority. New armoring continues to occur throughout Puget Sound, with a net increase in permitted armofng on average of almost one additional mile per year over the past decade (this includes 0.94 iniles of new armoring and 0.06 miles of removed armoring; PSP 2013). In Puget Sound, the Seattle District COE's choice to use MHHW rather than HAT as the jurisdictional boundary, results in some amount of new and rebuilt bulkhead placed each year without ESA review of CWA permits. The installation of these unpermitted and unreviewed bulkheads results in the continued degradation of critical habitat for PS Chinook salmon. The NMFS is also concerned about loss of ecological function within salmon critical habitat, particularly the upper intertidal zone, by actions that add and rebuild structures with hard armor instead of soft approaches described in the Marine Shoreline Design Guidance. A rough estimate based on shoreline slope (WDNR 2006) for the intertidal areas between MWWH and HAT and the rate of new bulkhead construction (PSP 2013) indicates that roughly 2.1 acres of critical habitat may be being filled per year by the construction of bulkheads constructed in areas where the COE has chosen not to exert regulatory authority. Thus, NMFS recommends that the COE implement the following conservation recommendations in order to protect ESA listed species and their designated critical habitat: 5 - The Seattle District Army Corps of Engineers should use their discretion in setting their tidal jurisdiction for CWA permitting authority over projects within full tidal range including HAT, instead of using MHHW which misses a significant portion of the tidal range and excludes 1.5 to 2.5 vertical feet of critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon throughout Puget Sound. Also, the Seattle District should ensure that proposed permit actions involving marine; 'shoreline modification be consistent with the latest technical guidance, i.e., the State's Marine Shoreline Design Guidance (MSDG) NMFS believes that following the MSDG will result in far less loss of ecological function and gradually help restore function to salmon critical habitat_ Reinitiation of Consultation Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency, or by NMFS, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and (1) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (2) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this concurrence letter; or if (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action (50 CFR 402.16). This concludes the ESA portion of this consultation. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT Federal and other consulting agencies operating under Federal authority are required, under section 305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). For purposes of the MSA; EFH means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity", and includes the associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish (50 CFR 600.10), and "adverse effect" means any impact which reduces either the quality or quantity of EFH (50 CFR 600.910(a). Adverse effects may include direct, indirect, site - specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. If an action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFH conservation recommendations (section 305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the Federal agency and descriptions of EFH for Pacific salmon contained in the Fishery Management Plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Effects of the Action NMFS determined that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH by creating short term, localized, increases in turbidity and a temporary reduction in riparian function. However, these negative impacts will be offset by the increase in water quality through the removal of creosote rol piles and increase in riparian function over the long term. The. action area includes approximately 1 acre of estuarine and marine nearshore waters. The project area includes habitat which has been designated as EFH for various life stages of coastal pelagic species, Pacific coast groundfish, and Pacific salmon. Additionally, the Seattle District COE selection of MHI-IW as the jurisdictional boundary for CWA permitting authority likely leads to a degradation of quality and quantity of EFH through unregulated development in EFH and related interruption to shoreline processes that support habitat function. Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendation NMFS has determined that the following conservation recommendation is necessary to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of COE permitting and the proposed action: - The Seattle District Army Corps of Engineers should better protect intertidal EFH by using their discretion in setting their tidal jurisdiction for CWA permitting authority over projects within full tidal range that includes HAT, instead of using MHHW which misses a significant portion of the tidal range and excludes 1.5 to 2.5 vertical feet of upper intertidal EFH throughout Puget Sound. Statutory Response Requirement Within 30 days after receiving this recommendation, you must provide NMFS with a detailed written response, per 50 CFR 600.920(k)(1). If your response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendation, you must explain why the recommendation will not be followed, including the scientific justification for any disagreements over the anticipated effects of the action and the measures needed to avoid, minimise, mitigate, or offset such effects. In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness'by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting ement to dete�e how many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each Econsultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, we askthat in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. Supplemental Consultation The COE must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR 600.9200)). This concludes the MSA portion of this consultation. 7 This concludes consultation under the ESA and MSA. If you have questions concerning these consultations, please contact Zach Hughes of the Oregon Washington Coastal Area Office at 360-753=6052, or by e-mail at zach.hughes@noaa.gov. Cc.. Sincerely, William W. Stelle, Jr. Regional Administrator Randel Perry, COE Racheal Villa, Soundvlew Consultants, LLC Janet Shull, City of Federal Way Laura Arber, Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife 8 References Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). 2013.2013 State of the Sound: A Biennial Report on the Recovery of Puget Sound. Tacoma, WA. 177pp. Washingtoa State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2006. The Washington State ShoreZoue Inventory. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Aquatic Resources Division. ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE March 4, 2014 City of Federal Way Attn: Janet Shull, Senior Planner 33325 8`h Ave. South Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: File #12-103812-00-SH — Proposed Revision for Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stairway Replacement Dear Ms. Shull, 710 9 CFI AN, EtNUL S&\TTLE, \VA 98104-2017 m+rnarrrrlc;rrdr,liec�a:urg The Archdiocese is proposing a reduction in the shoreline armoring shown in the current proposal which was submitted on November 26, 2013. From the meeting geld on February 17, 2014, the lack of consensus among the jurisdictions concerning this project was made clear. In order to proceed as soon as possible with construction of shoreline armoring, the proposal is changed as follows (see attached drawing dated 3/4/14): ■ Rock bulkhead 45 ft. long parallel to the shoreline and centered approximately at the landing of the proposed stairway (80 ft. +/- from the western property line). Soft shore stabilization of 25 ft. length will be installed on each side of the rock bulkhead. The total armoring length of this proposal is 95 f., of which the 45 feet of hard armoring matches the length of the existing timber bulkhead. Beach restoration work will remain essentially the same and will include removal of the barge and existing bulkhead, with beach nourishment limited to the area projected from the 95 ft. of armoring length. The 95 ft. is significantly less than what is recommended by our consultants to protect the property but is an amount we believe can be permitted by the jurisdictions in a timely manner to allow construction in late summer 2014. The Retreat Center is eager to regain safe access to the beach. Thank you again for arranging the meeting last week and helping us to move forward with this very important project. Please let me know if you need further information. I can be reached at telephone number 206-382-4851. Sincerely, 'ic � Frank Feeman Chief Financial Officer, Archdiocese of Seattle Encl. Copy w/out encl.: John Hempelmann, Attorney, Cairrmcross & Hempelmann Dale Yeager, Principal, Yeager Associates DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 CITY OF 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www.ci offederalwa .com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ti XOfher I car:;-1r x-; ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was Amailed ❑ faxed X e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on t�- 6, 2013. Project Name j1UL File Number(s) /- Signature Date 3 t::\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribufion.doc/Last printed 1 1 /19/2013 3:05:00 PM Posted Sites: Federal Way City Hall: 33325 8h Ave South Federal Way Library: 34200 15' Way South Federal Way 320h Library: 848 S. 320h St K:\CD Administration Files\Decloralion of Distribution.doc/Last printed 11 /19/2013 3:05:00 PM Tina Piety Subject: Hearing Examiner STaff Report Start Date: Thursday, March 06, 2014 Due Date: Friday, March 07, 2014 Status: Not Started Percent Complete: 0% Total Work: 0 hours Actual Work: 0 hours Owner: Tina Piety Requested By: Janet Shull Pleases prepare document 63125 in AMANDA file no. 12-103814 "Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner" for distribution I will bring you hard copy of the exhibits. When done, please distribute as follows: 2 Hard copies with all exhibits to City Clerk 1 Hard copy with all exhibits to the following: o Applicant/owner o Applicant's agent o Me Vr"-1 Hard copy of staff report only to: o Isaac [/� Electronic Copy of staff report only to the following: o City Clerk o Dale Yeager at and ea er comcast.net o Theresa Turpin at theresat@scialliance.com o Ed Heavey at eheavey@ landauinc.com o Laura Arber at Laura.Arber@dfw.wa.g o Zach Hughes at zach.hu hes noaa. ov o David Pater at DAPA461 ECY.WA,GOV o Michael Riedy at Michael.Riedy@fema.dhs.gov My cell phone number is 206-919-8244 if any questions tomorrow. Janet Tina Piet From: Tina Piety Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 4:33 PM To: Janet Shull Subject: Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Attachments: Palisades Staff Report.docx Hello, Attached you will find the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner's Staff Report for the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair. The public hearing will be held Friday, March 14, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. in the Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers. If you have any questions and/or comments, please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253- 835-2644, or Janet.shull2cityoffederalway.com. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant li Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2601; Fax 253-835-2609 Tina Piety From: Becky Chapin Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 9:48 AM To: Tina Piety Cc: Janet Shull Subject: Palisades Staff Report Hi Tina, Gus Ripple would like a copy of the staff report emailed to him.gusIbseattlearch.org Thank You! Becky ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE March 4, 2014 City of Federal Way Attn: Janet Shull, Senior Planner 33325 8`h Ave. South Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: File #12-103812-00-SH — Proposed Revision for Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stairway Replacement Dear Ms. Shull, 710 9TF1 AN ENUE SEATTLE,'WA 98104-201- wmc;eaulearchdiocese. org The Archdiocese is proposing a reduction in the shoreline armoring shown in the current proposal which was submitted on November 26, 2013. From the meeting held on February 17, 2014, the lack of consensus among the jurisdictions concerning this project was made clear. In order to proceed as soon as possible with construction of shoreline armoring, the proposal is changed as follows (see attached drawing dated 3/4/14): Rock bulkhead 45 ft. long parallel to the shoreline and centered approximately at the landing of the proposed stairway (80 ft. +/- from the western property line). Soft shore stabilization of 25 ft. length will be installed on each side of the rock bulkhead. The total armoring length of this proposal is 95 ft., of which the 45 feet of hard armoring matches the length of the existing timber bulkhead. Beach restoration work will remain essentially the same and will include removal of the barge and existing bulkhead, with beach nourishment limited to the area projected from the 95 ft. of armoring length. The 95 ft. is significantly less than what is recommended by our consultants to protect the property but is an amount we believe can be permitted by the jurisdictions in a timely mariner to allow construction in late summer 2014. The Retreat Center is eager to regain safe access to the beach. Thank you again for arranging the meeting last week and helping us to move forward with this very important project. Please let me know if you need further information. I can be reached at telephone number 206-382-4851. Sincerely, �L � —�.'W cx--V--r- Frank Feeman Chief Financial Officer, Archdiocese of Seattle Encl. Copy w/out encl.: John Hempelmann, Attorney, Caimcross & Hempelmann Dale Yeager, Principal, Yeager Associates CIT Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit,yoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 1, Kennith George hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ; Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or*osted to or at each of the attached addresses on September 28 2012. Project Name Palisades Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement File Number(s) 12-103815-00-SH 12-10381400-SH 12-103812-00-SH & 12-103-816-00-SE Signature Date r K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distdioution.doc/Last printed 9/28/2012 12:31:00 PM Posted Sites: Federal Way City Hall: 33325 3h Ave South Federal Way Library: 34200 15t Way South ! 9-1rr_rr_►M�rRet a►� ��etir�� • • ' • • K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Disfdbution.doc/Last printed 9/28/2012 12:31:00 PM CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Name: Palisades Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement Description: Proposal to construct a 380 linear foot bulkhead, 340 linear foot soft shore armoring, and repair a portion of an existing beach access stair. All work is proposed within a designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment. The site is also categorized as a geologically hazardous area (steep slope, erosion, and seismic hazard) and is located within a designated coastal flood hazard area. Applicant: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Agent: Dale Yeager, Yeager Associates, 14323 11011 Avenue East, Puyallup, WA 98374 Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road. King County tax parcel number 112103-9010, Federal Way, WA 98023 Date Application Received: August 17, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 28, 2012 Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. (File #12-103815-00-SH); Shoreline -Variance, (File #12=103814-00-SH); Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File #12-143812-00-SH); and Stale Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #12-103816-00-SE), Existing Environmental Documents: SEPA Checklist, Geotechnical Report, Shoreline Permits Consistency Report, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, and Cultural Resources Assessment. Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below: X i YES _NO Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at this Time: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15, "Shoreline Management"; FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management'; and FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed For consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC and the King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City of Federal Way. Any person may submit written comments on the Notice of Land Use Application to the Director of Community and Economic Development by October 12, 2012. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community and Economic Development (address below). Any person has the right to submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner and appear at the public hearing of the Hearing Examiner to give comments orally. Notification of the public hearing date will occur approximately 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may challenge the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, 253-835-2644 City of Federal Way, Department of Community and Economic Development 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Published in the Federal Way Mirror on September 28, 2012. File 912-103812-00-SH Doc, I D. 62277 m a� C U .Q C 0� Co OY O c0 0 E O •� O`' m ii m fn N U: x a) ch C = tp N _ Z5�NQa)CmU ��� ��N a) ��,Z)a)c: �E c)U) o,�� �'= "O E O ca U N C U N O O O — 9 Oco L F o N Q "' m C OL m >a o O•' LO °O1 r s aE com .Z5 3 (6 _ 0 .- C O Co O C'C U"OL �, O c0 O M NOMO Q N LL O .N a ca LZ3 C U L U > a -'Co (6 3 C r r O r N r N C C O)O r ' N :T C U N Q m E U cu O N O O .� N to N N Y Y O U C Q-a O O E U-- E Q 7 L L (p U 7 7 i 0 i < U) U) ) 0 IF/ W C6 W E o Cu Cu LL- �° a� Cl) (D o ry L U) O vJ d' m .cn co n N N O LL ff, z O O O O (N a o CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 1, r hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: (r TC Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretatbn ❑ Other_ ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Pelmit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was mailed ❑ faxed Xe-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2012. Project Name I A- ' --- File Number(s) _ 3 S -EWE�5 - ;360j'{ 1 Signature. Date7 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Losl printed 5/24/2012 4:20:00 PM CITY OF•►/ Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Name: Palisades Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement Description: Proposal to construct a 380 linear foot bulkhead, 340 linear foot soft shore armoring, and repair a portion of an existing beach access stair. All work is proposed within a designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment. The site is also categorized as a geologically hazardous area (steep slope, erosion, and seismic hazard) and is located within a designated coastal flood hazard area. Applicant: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9`h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Agent: Dale Yeager, Yeager Associates, 14323 1161h Avenue East, Puyallup, WA 98374 Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road. King County tax parcel number 112103-9010, Federal Way, WA 98023 Date Application Received: August 17, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 28, 2012 , Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, (File #12-103815-00-SH); Shoreline Variance, (File #12-103814-00-SH); Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File #12-103812-00-SH); and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File 912-103816-00-SE). Existing Environmental Documents: SEPA Checklist, Geotechnical Report, Shoreline Permits Consistency Report, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, and Cultural Resources Assessment. Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below: X YES _NO Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at this Time: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15, "Shoreline Management"; FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management'; and FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC and the King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City of Federal Way. Any person may submit written comments on the Notice of Land Use Application to the Director of Community and Economic Development by October 12, 2012. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community and Economic Development (address below). Any person has the right to submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner and appear at the public hearing of the Hearing Examiner to give comments orally. Notification of the public hearing date will occur approximately 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may challenge the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, 253-835-2644 City of Federal Way, Department of Community and Economic Development 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Published in the Federal Way Mirror on September 28, 2012. File 4 12-103812-00-SH Doc. I.D. 62277 m C a� C U .Q N C a� N -•� O� CV �co O E m �i m U) N N 'O X O a) 2 U p N (A C C o2S W _ NU`N° L N O o��� oQ,w -o E `o cu U• N N C -o o o N Q C v- N� C O O p- 0 0 O �i► E C 0 0 O- O O C N O C > O_ 3 O O r co co f03 cp p@ p O UQ p ja-C >, NOMO a�0 ��UiQMcnm3c ��0� i# N1N F N N"O m N p N N N— N u LL aY m F E . 01 O O 'C N U CU - U N N N O Y Y O C L.L Q� O O E U-- E Q 7 L L m U 3 7- 0 <WU) n-o carom MO Irl o CO 4D � ---j Cu U m .� 0 (D cu L U) O (� co .U) co 0- d) N O LL O O O O N O * o Q M N O 00 Q 3 w 6wL. M N O 00 ¢ 3 w [W M N O 00 Q 3 w w M N O 00 ¢ 3� w CW O � o M O) O 00 ¢ 3 w¢ kw N wQ w In, a M O Cl 00 O\ 3 w W. OO ON ,I-01 00 ON Q w a M N O Oo Q 3 w LW M O1 O 00 ON Q 3 w " 00 H cnw M N O OO D1 Q 3 w M N O O0 ¢ 3 w GW M N O Oo O1 ¢ 3 w w M N O OO ON Q 3 w w M N O 00 01 ¢¢ 3 w w M N O 00 01 3 w w M N O Oo O� ¢ 3 w w M N O 00 01 Q¢ 3 w [W M N O Oo D1 3 w Yw M N O 00 ON ¢ 3 w Gw4 M N O 00 O, ¢ 3 w +W .- . M N O 00 Q 3 w w d O kn O °` O M N O00 00 Q1 Q 3¢ w w rn '-' M N O 00 01 Q 3 w A w M N O Oo 01 Q 3 w A GWi, M O O Oo O� Q 3 w A w M N O 00 01 Q 3 w A [w C) O O 00 (71 Q 3 H w Q A LWL to 3 �HH�Hcn3U)En�o Q3 N w w w " W v, � v) w ""�"" `" w w w w w A C40 "' v� t" W a J x x o o ,r >CPO Q x x x x x Q W x I o x x Q x CO N -p x oo 00 t` 00 00 Q O x 0 0 0 0 ¢ x 9 C � 'T 00 M 01 Q\ W 00 Qo ��30� oar-C)cn 3V)U)V) �i�cdvV�i000��33NknC=) C � Q N O "D w N (� N ^ O_ (� kn O W) kn O ^ N O O N d 00 N N O C M M 00 O M d O N d M d d ^ "" •"' M ^ M ^ N DD 00 ^ �--� m ^ m = .G Q M M d d d (�. d M ^ d Q+ N d d d d M M M M M d M M M N d 00 M M M M M d C� O G 0 C O U U D O � � O c U d% o `n E Z c� O z0 ¢ w xa m z Q CL/�1� N X Q Q U d t+- a Om z � � � U w � vWi m x W � a � W [�• ¢ � p Ll Z ¢ Q W pwq + W = w d �3 >, w O i w d W> + Q W N Z Q x Q¢ A a ¢ w H Q> + ¢ w '" w to ¢ pp �1 U Q + Q A¢ z 0 ¢ Z¢ x w ti z z ¢�w" aQW 3Q z xz H Zx x W¢a¢zR¢�¢ Up"°o¢¢zO Ctnz � zx"z O z U¢ Q¢ °w Qpp p Q cn coo cn >AH taAWxo �o CIO Qw o ¢z o x ¢ w H o O w o 7ti w U A to N to ce. 0 A, w' 3 N x Q A Q U ON O M ^ O ^ t- "I' W) 00 O d \O t` 00 M N v) O W) O to %n Wn O kn O kn O -- m M d �n �O `D l� 00 Do m O O O --� ^_ --� N M O N N M o0 0 0 0 0 ^^ 0 0 0 0 C, 0 O� (ONp, Q, ON O� O� Q� O� ON O� ON p� O� a, a1 O, O" O1 Ol ON C� O O O CD O O O CDO O O O m M m M M m M m m m M M M M M M m M M m M m CD CDO O a) O O CD O O O O O O_ O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 OO n O O O O O O O O O O O h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d d ,Zr d d d d d '� It � .~-i 00 00 DD 00 00 DD DO 00 00 00 DD � ' r N M V LO Cp fA O r N Cl) V - M- N N N N. N N N N N M r � r M M tM cM r r r r r r r c t A� W N N ao E �Ccc O G 0 C O d •V V C U F ai o J N Cl) N (V N( 1 O O O CD O O O O CD CD CD CDO O O O N O O O CD CD CD O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w 00 00 00 00 (ON 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O` c-,C1 O1 O O', 01 ON x \ O\ N N Q1 ON O� Oh C1 01 U O� O\ O\ O\ Q ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q ¢ ¢ Q Q ¢ ¢ Q 000 000 Q ¢ Q U Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢ 3 3 ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ o ¢ ¢ ¢ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 00 3 3 3 � 0 aa a a o :>- �w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w d w w w w w w w w w w��� w w w rrs w w w w w w w w w 0 M zrk C/] uo a a a a F- F- H H ro cn� w wcn w w w w w Z a a a a a a x x x x a > x x> x x>>> A x x x x x x x x F. x co 00 M M M M M m M M M fn H H Fx Ex- [x- Ex- ri fn r� ri o o H v°ii v°,i M M M M M M M M M w 4-T�� 3 3 3 3 x M o o 00 0 o O ,, O cn ,,, z z ,D \o kn ¢ cn Q M �n M N N O V o0 O M O (� N kn kn kn kn O O O U 0 M N N N N N N N N N M N N O N N o0 M M O O N O �/"� � 'n � N Q M M M f'"1 M M V � M M P. M P. V -t NImo E� wol- Q w ¢ z Q �D Z z Q¢ x z x A + z z ¢ ¢ ti + + U ti w w w w a A w x? z u -� H¢ g xx ���"¢ Wa3wU aAA¢oowwW CIO v� Q p u. w w x m Q w z a x H H x w w p x w zw N N ° o°¢ x z x w z ¢ -� C] A A ¢ H Q z c4 c7 O z w w ti c7 a p 3 H xIn w w z z z z H Q Q a w w p w w x z a A p rx w w cnV) c7 O v u w O 0 0 Q Q�D � w wc7 H O¢ ow OU wm Q O w C7 U x U U ti U w A C7 as 0 O J o O O O v� 0 o ^ O O [� v� 0 r O O r vl 0 o0 ( O O r 0 a\ ^ O O r 0 O N O O r 0 •-- N O O r 0 N N O O r 0 M N O O r 0 4 . O O r 0 v'i N O O r 0 V N O O r 0 r^ N O O r 0 O O O O 1�0 0 N O O O O �O 0 M O O O O D 0 V O O O CD �O 0 kn O O O O O 0 �O O O O O 0 r O O O O 0 00 O O O CD 0 ON O O co O 0 O O O 'n \0 0 N O O CDO vl �0 0 M O O to \0 0 'It O O O v1 �O 0 kn O O O Wn 110 0 \D O O O Vl 0 r O O O kn 0 oo O O O In 0 O� O O O kn I'O 0 O O O 'n ID 0 --� ^' O O v'� �O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i t Lo M (O Cl) I- CO W (h M m O It N v (h v cr Lr) � (D "T r v 00 V M Iq O LO Ln N LO M LO I LO LO Ln (O LO LO OD LO M LO O (O (O N (O Cl) (O (O LO (O CO (O ti (O r. c a c R IL E z. m Z O v L c m c, O � N C N x Lc r d CL �F 10 Om � a C _N J N w z J CO U) w ❑ ❑ Q T� w z J U) U) w ❑ Q w z_ J Z Q w Q z Of w Q IL it O _J *I 1. . 07/12/2012 City of 300' Parcel City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way Wa. 98003 Federal ay Notification area (206)-835.7000 wwws atyoffederalway. Cam i J 1 ' 1121 RL9040 1121039086 112103.9048 11210390f 0 1121032' 9058 te4p900015 i6 ON 0040 112 tw3 1044M O= E004 ,1x.ca-a,9 n 21n3 n2103 112103 112103 9059 j 112103. 3 9aee 1127939045 112103-9029 Q 1127039061 112103A105 p ra 112103-9007 _ S1N 308TH ST - - 112103 112103-9110 _ 9104 112103 saw 112103-9078 11210} 1 .. 9108 \ il2[0} 112f03.9097 I 211600MM 3 CO) 211600-0040-_.- _ --._.T '. i5S7000M 11210&9005 7110tm .1 0050 2117oo•O B�Sr�211600-008D „2 9 11 100 - - - - ---- ---- - - - .�' ,64090-OOzs -- -- 2116M -------- 184080- 16406184080. 184080- 184080- 0.', 0020 211600-- - - 0010 - -- , 00050 0045 0040 0035 184080-0025OM 2116000090 i SW 310TH ST 112103-9116 ,84066L0l+5 � - 154000••= 11T40!%r- 1lwpep- 194d/3 112103- 112103-9117 9038 q 009f 01 W ' 184003 1340e0- rd1 0106 164090Cp15 ;t W70 00� �y _ _ 164080-0015 712103905E _ 16<0B0• - IG190 119o- 1121039110 19D1IX2i- 1,�2103 16WW-0010 11 011 N ._- Q 1640E0- •. _ 184080-Ml0 l -- Q .__- 11t4081}00110 x - - 0080 112103-9114 '�, .184080-0075 1 101�109o- lop+ 4y 19 Y6 . P ,'. 112103- 9 164080-0WS 9013 y. ��1y6i40L9Y0-Orals iATE-ROT C-5og - _.__ _ - '-•_ 112103-9011 e7311W N - 211650- 211190• . 211630. J 211570• 211850- WSW 211650- -_- ' 0240 a 0290 7115700100 90E0 OOFB OOW 0K10 110W 0070 1121039132 - _ - = 71157P02W 211576 ` ._ .. m 21� .. _ _. 1tz103. 871t V xp21c•1121a> S_W 313T_H ST s019 - OM67819}• 0 673199- 0250 11660.00711 0280 , SW 312TH P!. 211s7o- - 1 --' stts50- 41G0 211650-0060,. zn x,se611as10 _ - • �- 0781 wa1 211570-wo 211'R0. 3. .. _ ..... �,'`70 30 — N 211970• - 873199- ' �1y . 1121039031 112103-9102 2.IMOM .._ _ F,a Ol90. " �y Y - '�LCR 211570- IL . 1p 110 2119T0•. GM ; 21197✓} _ t 'ylyw _A1719G09ti1 �J' Oleo 7 - ' - -- - 211970• , 9?311pGM ss7o- - alis7o-oe�o 0090 - R1w 211Zj7t}' 112103 M 87319930 -03g 11HP3- - 211$70.pOJ0 Olro V Q 9079 211570- SW 313TH PL 211s7o- U) 01oo 211570-OTM - -' 0160 11210343063Mw 619 2U$T0•C130 Q ary?� WWI 21,570- 211570= 0110 311570• 0i'�•7 973199- 8i]199- �� 189876 "271s72- 1 B9870- 789870- {00o a100 Tl15T247090. 2111?ZW o h .. - - 0320 0310 �� - - 0� - -- min- I0100211572. 211972-0OTO 211572-0040 211$T2•ppt0 211551- 211551-0580 211551- 271551-0fi30, 77]199. 0540 10Ge1�. 0, 2us77-0C9� 2119'r1. 0570 211s514)560 02A7. 7P 67i- - ---m'd1i0614 211551-0590 112103-9119 SW 3747H PL _ 0120 JAI 314TH P4 SVY 3T4TH PL- 9a6va1:0 lesei"'00 i" -ltss1 0133 1 sr241S10- ix5T24ssm 2t167Z'a3a0 en+E9m o Legend King County Tax Parcels Subject Property Notified Properties Scale: "'� 0� Federal Way N 0 137.5 275 Feet f I This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. FEMA EPA REGION 10 NTH DIV ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVCE 130 228T" ST SW TH AVE MD-126 510 DESMOND DR SE #102 SEA 6 BOTHELL WA 98021-9796 LACEY WA 98503 425-487-4600 EATTLE WA 98101 LAURA ARBER (saltwater) WDFW REGION 4 OFFICE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012-1296 laura.arber@dfw.wa.gov JAMEY TAYLOR DNR SEPA CENTER PO BOX 47015 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7015 sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov DEPT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PO BOX 48343 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8343 gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov DEPT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov WA NATURAL HERITAGE DNR PO BOX 47014 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7014 sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov LORI LULL US ARMY CORPS/ENGINEERS ATTN REGULATORY BRANCH PO BOX 3755 SEATTLE WA 98124 lori.c.lull@usace.army.mil MARSHA ENGEL PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 210 11T" AVE SW STE 401 OLYMPIA WA 98504-0900 marsha.engel@psp.wa.gov BOB ZEIGLER DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PO BOX 43200 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3155 sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov Tina Piety From: Tina Piety Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:52 PM To: 'laura.arber@dfw.wa.gov'; sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov; Marsha Engel; sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov; gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov;'lori.c.lull@usace.army.mil' Subject: Federal Way Notice of Application Attachments: Palisades Bulkhead NOA.pdf Hello, Attached you will find a Notice of Application for the City of Federal Way Palisades Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement project. Written comments must be received by October 12, 2012. If you have any comments and/or questions, please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull at 253-835-2644, or anet.shuil cit affederalwa .com Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2601; Fax 253-835-2609 �, srPrs• o o;; •f z x Y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov October 24, 2012 Mr. Isaac Conlen Planning Manager City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way, WA 98003 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 102412-04-KI Property: File #12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE, Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stair Replacement; 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Re: Archaeology— Concur with Survey Dear Mr. Conlen: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the proposed project referenced above. We concur with the survey and the recommendation that no further archaeological oversight is needed for this project at this time. If any federal funds or permits are involved Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations, 36CFR800, must be followed. This is a separate process from SEPA and requires formal government -to -government consultation with the affected Tribes and this agency. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties concerning cultural resource issues that you receive. In addition, the lead agency under Section 106 may require further archaeological work Thank you for the opportunity to review. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 586-3088 or Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586-3088 retchen.kaehler dah .wa. ov cc. Gus Ripple, Building and Construction Manager, Archdiocese of Seattle Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribe Dennis Lewarch, THPO, Suquamish Tribe Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources, Puyallup Tribe DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION A fi ),Ic-f 'ae °fit. 55h p�, tik, Future From: unknown Page: 2/2 Date: 7/26/2012 3:04:31 PM RECEIVE® cr" of AUG 17 2012 Federal WavCITY OF FEDERAL WAY MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION CDS s 14 (Ctkp i�-10331 Lf E,//qP-) ArpLwAnOA' No(s) -16 3 8 f S Project Name r/S DKFAF31,1t:NT OF Commum 'Y DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8* Avenue South Ftdcaal Way, WA 48003-6325 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 ti � off e m �--l038I6-SS Date 7/1 -7 /1 Property Address/l-ocation & a it.r ax-43 Parcel Number(,) a'dtmc---.. Project Description 5�r'l�r 11, J?_940. Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone —Land Surface Modibcation Lot Line Eliinination PrCapplieation Conference Process I (Mmotor's Approval) Process IT (SttePlsat Raw) Process III (ProjwtApproval) Process IV (Hearing lE=njnar's Decision) Process V {Quasi -Judicial Rozona) Pscsc-Ss Vl SEVA Only =Shvrcl ins; Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdividoa Subdivision T Variance: Conmzrcial/Residential el(• A f i rs0f —W V r ,•� �V) Required Information. 6 W Rnsilympr idri9 1 e k tan Dcsignation c .b lk Value of Existing Improvements 4/95,LV_ Valas 40roposed Inaprovemots International Building Code (IBC): Occupancy Type Construction Type Applicant Nance: Eel /-Z�3 tZ r� E Address: "7 1 U 1V 1 city/state: Zip: 1 010 4- i�i[3I10: � -7 r IL Fax: Z i3maik eel. 5'E 'r 1 �r •yrae +1 Signature: J _�;" Agent (if diaemnt than Applicant) Name: pale Address: / 913 a 3 Jj CztylSiat❑: PLt U) A zip: 783 Bone: p - -5 93 Fax: Eftwh Adm4w, C of c as t 17e� Signature: Owner Nome: WA ?r1-- �4.tic1;>r�a: aalletiq #003 - January 1. 2011 Page 1 of 1 'k:VlandoutsWaster Land Uso Application 31919 1 Ave S, Suite 101 I Federal, Way, WA 98003 1 253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way — Economic Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 28th day of February 2014, and ending on the 28th day of February 2014 both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of 149.97, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 17th day of March 2014. Fill Notary Public in and for the State of Washingtz` Residing at Buckley S° \�`' Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 11:00 a.m., or shortly thematter, on Friday, March 14, 2014, in Federal Way City Council Chambers 40TICES (33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003) for the following project, in accordance with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Project Name' Palisades (Archbishop Brunelt) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replace- ment File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH,12-103815-SH,and 12-103816-SE Description: Shoreline substatdlal devalop- ment permit, shoreline condillonat use permit, and shoreline variance request 10 allow for replacement of a damaged portion of an existing beacti access stairway, shard ne modification activities consist- ing of rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring, and shoreline restoration actions, on property desig- nated Shoreline — Urban Conservancy. A p p I i e a n I 1 0 w n e r Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 7109th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Project Location: 4700 SW Dash Paint Road. Fed- eral Way, WA 98023 (Parcel 0112103-9010 and 112103-9029) Citatlow FWRC Title 15, Section 15.05.150 (Substantial development petmit); Sec- 1100 1515.160 (Shoreline variance): and Section 15.05.170 (Conditional uses), Date Application Received: August 21. 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 27, 2012 Data of SEPA Issuance: December 20, 2013 Relevant Environmental Documents Are Available at the Address Below: X Yes No Development Regulations to be used for Project Review Known at this Time: FWRC Title 15, 'Shoreline Management' and FWRC Title 14 "Environmental Policy" Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File 12.103812-SH); Shoreline Variance (File 12.103014-SH): Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File 12-1f13815-SK and Environmental Threshold De- tuminatlon (File 12.103816-SE}. Public Heanng Process: Any person may partici- pate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner either by deliw erinp comments 10 the Department of Community and Economic Development before the hearing, or by appearing at the hearing and presenting public testimony In person. or through a representative, The Hearing Examiner will issue a recommendatien on the Shoreline Variance, the Shoreline Condition- al Use Permit, and the associated Shoreline Sub- stanlial Development Permit within ten working days after the close of the hearing. Arry person to The right to request a copy o1 the Hearing Examiner's decision, once made. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hear- ing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision, The application is to be reviewed under all applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file for the above project Is available for review during business hours at the permit coumer 81 Federal Way City Hall (33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003), The stall report to the Hearing Examiner will be available for review one week before the hearing. Questions regarding this project should be directed to Senior Planner Janet Shull, A]CP, at 253-835-2644, or janet.shull@city- ottederalway,com. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on February 28, 2014. FWM 2111 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8t" Avenue South PO Box 9718 CITY OF Federal Way WA 9806,- 9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www.cit offederalwa . om DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, CAuji,, U i hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of ashington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or .El -posted to or at each of the attached addresses on Fz6r,w 2014. Project Name 0 �AC&M File Number(s) Signature IL Date L K:\PLANNING INTERN\Declaration of Distribution notices\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc Postina Sites: Federal Way City Hall- 33325 Vh Avenue Federal Way Regional Library-34200 1st Way South Federal Way 320h Branch Library- 848 South 320th Street Subject Site- gag) S r 04 u K.\PLANNING INTERN\Declaration of Distribution notices\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc 4011kkhh� CITY Federalo. Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.dt offederalwa .corn DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 4 l hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significarce (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ge-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on o 11— 2014. Project Name t 0-1 �� \ File Number(s) I - ) b3 21 Signature—!! Date K:\CD Administration Res\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2:40:00 PM _k CITY OF -� Federal Vti1ay NOTICE OF LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner wiII hold a public hearing at 11:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, on Friday, March 14, 2014, in Federal Way City Council Chambers (33325 8t' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003) for the following project, in accordance with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Project Name: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Description: Shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, and shoreline variance request to allow for replacement of a damaged portion of an existing beach access stairway, shoreline modification activities consisting of rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring, and shoreline restoration actions, on property designated Shoreline — Urban Conservancy. Applicant/Owner: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9t' Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Project Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023 (Parcel #112103-9010 and 112103-9029) Citation: FWRC Title 15, Section 15.05.150 (Substantial development permit); Section 15.05.160 (Shoreline variance); and Section 15.05.170 (Conditional uses). Date Application Received: August 21, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 27, 2012 Date of SEPA Issuance: December 20, 2013 Relevant Environmental Documents Are Available at the Address Below: X Yes _ No Development Regulations to be used for Project Review Known at this Time: FWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management" and FWRC Title 14 `Environmental Policy" Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File 12-103812-SH); Shoreline Variance (File 12-103814-SH); Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File 12-103815-SH); and Environmental Threshold Determination (File 12-103816-SE). Public Hearing Process: Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner either by delivering comments to the Department of Community and Economic Development before the hearing, or by appearing at the hearing and presenting public testimony in person, or through a representative. The Hearing Examiner will issue a recommendation on the Shoreline Variance, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and the associated Shoreline Substantial Development Permit within ten working days after the close of the hearing. Any person has the right to request a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision, once made. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application is to be reviewed under all applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file for the above project is available for review during business hours at the permit counter at Federal Way City Hall (33325 8'h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). The staff report to the Hearing Examiner will be available for review one week before the hearing. Questions regarding this project should be directed to Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835-2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on February 28, 2014. Doc. J.D. 66072 Tamara Fix From: Jennifer Anderson <jnderson@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:24 AM To: Tamara Fix Subject: Re: Another Legal Notice - Palisades Hearing Got it, thanks! Jennifer Anderson Advertising Sales Consultant Office: 253-925-5565, Ext 3052 Internal: 02-3052 Fax: 253-925-5750 31919 1st Ave S, Ste 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 ❑x Sound Publishing, Inc. Map Print Rates Online Rates Media Kit Sound Info On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tamara Fix <Tamara.Fix ci offederalwa .comma wrote: Please publish the following legal notice (Palisades Hearing, 12-103812) in Friday's (2-28-14) issue. Please confirm and issue an affidavit of publication. Thank you. NOTICE OF LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 11:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, on Friday, March 14, 2014, in Federal Way City Council Chambers (33325 81h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003) for the following project, in accordance with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Project Name: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Description: Shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, and shoreline variance request to allow for replacement of a damaged portion of an existing beach access stairway, shoreline modification activities consisting of rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring, and shoreline restoration actions, on property designated Shoreline — Urban Conservancy. Applicant/Owner: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9`h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Project Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023 (Parcel #112103- 9010 and 112103-9029) Citation: FWRC Title 15, Section 15.05.150 (Substantial development permit); Section 15.05.160 (Shoreline variance); and Section 15.05.170 (Conditional uses). Date Application Received: August 21, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 27, 2012 Date of SEPA Issuance: December 20, 2013 Relevant Environmental Documents Are Available at the Address Below: X Yes No Development Regulations to be used for Project Review Known at this Time: FWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management" and FWRC Title 14 `Environmental Policy" Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File 12-103812-SH); Shoreline Variance (File 12-103814-SH); Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File 12-103815-SH); and Environmental Threshold Determination (File 12-103816-SE). Public Hearing Process: Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner either by delivering comments to the Department of Community and Economic Development before the hearing, or by appearing at the hearing and presenting public testimony in person, or through a representative. The Hearing Examiner will issue a recommendation on the Shoreline Variance, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and the associated Shoreline Substantial Development Permit within ten working days after the close of the hearing. Any person has the right to request a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision, once made. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application is to be reviewed under all applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file for the above project is available for review during business hours at the permit counter at Federal Way City Hall (33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). The staff report to the Hearing Examiner will be available for review one week before the hearing. Questions regarding this project should be directed to Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835-2644, or janet.shull@.ci!3,offederalyLay.com. cit3,offederalway.com. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on February 28, 2014. CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 11:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, on Friday, March 14, 2014, in Federal Way City Council Chambers (33325 8`h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003) for the following project, in accordance with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Project Name: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Description: Shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, and shoreline variance request to allow for replacement of a damaged portion of an existing beach access stairway, shoreline modification activities consisting of rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring, and shoreline restoration actions, on property designated Shoreline — Urban Conservancy. Applicant/Owner: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9`' Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Project Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023 (Parcel #112103-9010 and 112103-9029) Citation: FWRC Title 15, Section 15.05.150 (Substantial development permit); Section 15.05.160 (Shoreline variance); and Section 15.05.170 (Conditional uses). Date Application Received: August 21, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 27, 2012 Date of SEPA Issuance: December 20, 2013 Relevant Environmental Documents Are Available at the Address Below: X Yes _ No Development Regulations to be used for Project Review Known at this Time: FWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management" and FWRC Title 14 "Environmental Policy" Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File 12-103812-SH); Shoreline Variance (File 12-103814-SH); Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File 12-103815-SH); and Environmental Threshold Determination (File 12-103816-SE). Public Hearing Process: Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner either by delivering continents to the Department of Community and Economic Development before the hearing, or by appearing at the hearing and presenting public testimony in person, or through a representative. The Hearing Examiner will issue a recommendation on the Shoreline Variance, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and the associated Shoreline Substantial Development Permit within ten working days after the close of the hearing. Any person has the right to request a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision, once made. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application is to be reviewed under all applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file for the above project is available for review during business hours at the permit counter at Federal Way City Hall (33325 8 h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). The staff report to the Hearing Examiner will be available for review one week before the hearing. Questions regarding this project should be directed to Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835-2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on February 28, 2014. Doc. LD 66072 CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 11:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, on Friday, March 14, 2014, in Federal Way City Council Chambers (33325 8`' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003) for the following project, in accordance with the Federal Wary Revised Code (FWRC). Project Name: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Description: Shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, and shoreline variance request to allow for replacement of a damaged portion of an existing beach access stairway, shoreline modification activities consisting of rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring, and shoreline restoration actions, on property designated Shoreline — Urban Conservancy. Applicant/Owner: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9`h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Project Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023 (Parcel #112103-9010 and 112103-9029) Citation: FWRC Title 15, Section 15.05.150 (Substantial development permit); Section 15.05.160 (Shoreline variance); and Section 15.05.170 (Conditional uses). Date Application Received: August 21, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 27, 2012 Date of SEPA Issuance: December 20, 2013 Relevant Environmental Documents Are Available at the Address Below: X Yes _ No Development Regulations to be used for Project Review Known at this Time: FWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management" and FWRC Title 14 "Environmental Policy" Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File 12-103812-SH); Shoreline Variance (File 12-103814-SH); Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File 12-103815-SH); and Environmental Threshold Determination (File 12-103816-SE). Public Hearing Process: Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner either by delivering comments to the Department of Cornmunity and Economic Development before the hearing, or by appearing at the hearing and presenting public testimony in person, or through a representative. The Hearing Examiner will issue a recommendation on the Shoreline Variance, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and the associated Shoreline Substantial Development Permit within ten wonting days after the close of the hearing. Any person has the right to request a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision, once made. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application is to be reviewed under all applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file for the above project is available for review during business hours at the permit counter at Federal Way City Hall (33325 S'h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). The staff report to the Hearing Examiner will be available for review one week before the hearing. Questions regarding this project should be directed to Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835-2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on February 28, 2014. Doc- LD- 66072 4illkk CITY OF ' Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalw(3v.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, �R hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significarce (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter j9 Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Pemnit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was nailed ❑ faxed M mailed andlor ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2014. Project Name File Number(s) i � -/ b 3 Signature Date r a r 1 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distdbution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2:40:00 PM • r CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing at 11:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, on Friday, March 14, 2014, in Federal Way City Council Chambers (33325 8t' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003) for the following project, in accordance with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Project Name: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE Description: Shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, and shoreline variance request to allow for replacement of a damaged portion of an existing beach access stairway, shoreline modification activities consisting of rock bulkhead and soft shore armoring, and shoreline restoration actions, on property designated Shoreline — Urban Conservancy. Applicant/Owner: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9"' Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Project Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023 (Parcel #112103-9010 and 112103-9029) Citation: FWRC Title 15, Section 15.05.150 (Substantial development permit); Section 15.05.160 (Shoreline variance); and Section 15.05.170 (Conditional uses). Date Application Received: August 21, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 27, 2012 Date of SEPA Issuance: December 20, 2013 Relevant Environmental Documents Are Available at the Address Below: X Yes _ No Development Regulations to be used for Project Review Known at this Time: FWRC Title 15, "Shoreline Management" and FWRC Title 14 `Environmental Policy" Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File 12-103812-SH); Shoreline Variance (File 12-103814-SH); Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (File 12-103815-SH); and Environmental Threshold Determination (File 12-103816-SE). Public Hearing Process: Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comments to the Hearing Examiner either by delivering comments to the Department of Community and Economic Development before the hearing, or by appearing at the hearing and presenting public testimony in person, or through a representative. The Hearing. Examiner will issue a recommendation on the Shoreline Variance, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and the associated Shoreline Substantial Development Permit within ten working days after the close of the hearing. Any person has the right to request a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision, once made. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. The application is to be reviewed under all applicable codes, regulations, and policies of the City of Federal Way. The official file for the above project is available for review during business hours at the permit counter at Federal Way City Hall (33325 8ffi Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). The staff report to the Hearing Examiner will be available for review one week before the hearing. Questions regarding this project should be directed to Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835-2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on February 28, 2014. Doe, I,D. 66072 07112/2012 City of 300' Parcel Federal Way Notification area City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way Wa. 98003 (206) - 835 - 7000 www.cityoffederalway cam 112103 112103 1 907, 903I 112103- 9059 '12103 112103- 9M 112103-9045 112103-9081 112103-9105 a cz 1121019007 ",,M 308TH ST 112103-9086 112103-9040 112103- 91 04 112103-9110 1,2-W-91M 112103- 9080 112101 9108 1121039010 �121 184090-0045 211600-OM it fww- Ow 21160041040 I i 210} OM 19409 CM 1121019005 184090-OOM 211600- OM 211600-0070 - - 184090- 0050 Jill, 11�31* 11210} 9009 211600. 211600-00801 -- - .384090,0025 184080-:184080- 184080- :184080- 1— 0020 211600- "016 - - - - - 0055 0050 : 0045 0040 OMS 1 B4080-0025 211SM-0090 184090-0055 4110 4 - — - - SW 310TH ST 112103-9116 plEl - ; N Mail- 1440w 18,0(g, 184080-0020 112103-9117 112103- 9039 I , "Ill", I 1540)0. acamm 7%7 01" "le' 104COMIS C070 am 154080-0015 1121019058 184090. � 104I&WOO. 20 112103,9118 112103- 112103- 9014 0075 184090-0010 1154N0407e 0000 0110 i re9012 184060.0010 18409040005 112103-9114 112103- 912B lowwovs olls 112103- 184080-OD05 9013 RATE-ROM500-- 112103-9011 1"12TO3-9-07 1CM 211650. 2"411" 211a5 211650, am 0340 om 211650- 112103-91, QMI COID 112103. A,2103�wv go sw 31 OTH sr 9" 16 OM MIQD. *M 11 02011 SW 312TH PIL i -- 21165D- 21 165a' 211650-0110 0100 U312amn 211570-MlO 21 1570-00 211570- Z 'LT '1 2116 7- 01-W 'a 8131 nNO — fi� 211S70- 112103-9051 112103-9102 21157D-OMO -J 0190 B73199. 0300 211570- IL wpk?q!Ft, 0?D 211570 � !"570 O20180 9?3T9%e= * 2.Ma211570 M QGM 211570 1121039060 i 1373199M30 112103- 0170 e J07925$57TKT 21157q]- SW 313TH PL wm, R DKO 2sismzrio - . . 11 1 11 103-9M 2115704M 873199w 0340 art1w. 211570- 2M Z$570, Gila a' 7w a73199- 873199. 0550 89571). 2Imw 03$0 1"741- TVMM 0220 03113 am 010 ;h, 1 2115TZ'= 2002-40, . 21IM44040 2= - ant 7� ZlI37ZOM. 2111;1.11Ml- leasm-0110 21157243= ' 0570 211111.. Ow DMO 211 551_0590 Sw al4TH PL 02AD "llar" 211551-05560 1 112103-9119 0$2a, IT 1139870-0170 IMMVIMG iMM.W7. VIQ241,VM;Ka �MV 314TO P�_ MM-OVO Legend King County Tax Parcels Subject Property Notified Properties 4 v or Scale: cl" 40;& Federal Way N 0 137.5 275 Feet This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. w C 0 0 z M N Cl 00 3 m N O �0 C,A 3 m N O 00 C1 3 CM N O 00 O\ 3 kr) Cl) O1 O 00 O, 3 C. p O 00 ON 3 C)" �t 00 Q "l ' 3 M 011 O 90 71 3 00 cn N O 00 O\ 3 Cl) N O 00 C7, 3 c+l N Cl 00 O\ 3 m N O 00 Cl 3 m N O 00 011 3 m N O 00 01 3 M N. O 00 O% 3 M o 00 ON 3 m N. O 00 O\ 3 M O 00 ON 3 m N O 00 O, 3 Cl) N O 00 O1 3 ,T p kn M N O 00 O� 3¢ 00 00 m N O 00 O1 3 M N O 00 01 3 M O O 00 O� M N O 00 01 3 C'1 O O 00 011 3 o Q a w w a w w a w w w¢ EL. a w k x a w 0a Q w s w w a w a w a w a w s w w a w w a w a w a w¢ w a w o a w w a w a w a w a w w w N 3 � x 3 3 can � on Q F � H � � N � � � � � o yP q � ' a N w w wU� cn w G7 V] Wcn V] U] Cn W w w w w a' V] U w w `l as z > > x x rH„ z w x> x x x x>>>>> x w¢> a a w> y J d d H> 00 ¢ 00� 00 00¢ Q¢¢ Q Q> p p N o N o 0 0 0 Ex H Ex Fx q x q 'ItoHo 0o M° rn ONR` oho H M Q O ,I-3 cn U] o 77i—CD o o N 3 V) � co��� n N 3 00 U� 3 C003 N� T Omi C co D CC/] ai N O �D 00 N ai N ^ --� O w V') O 'n 'n O .-. N O O ' D 01 00 N N N ^ ^ O O ,--� ^ M O N O O V'1 O O O O O N •C .--� ,-. M M W O M ^ r+ 7 O (V � M �# ,--i ,—� ,--, M ^ M ^ N 00 •--� ,--� .--i ^ l� [- = •� Q m m •� -t a M •--� (�+ N �F m m M M M 7 M M M N V 00 M M M M M � O C x c� U a oC � C O = U 4% O E z O cu w as Z 0 Q w x a d @ Z ¢ r J Q ¢ U O m ,N a F w a W H x z z ¢ w W F+ w a>q ¢w Q '¢ �cG O q+QZ ¢z >wo+¢ + d ¢W E4 a + +d¢ a¢ ¢z¢ Q z o z 0 o>o¢zz¢¢z0+oQo x¢ x qzx> g > ¢ c)�> xo Q Q W F W U W ¢0 Q z W udd-1 Q x x Q W N cn x a W UC/) Q ¢ Zp z 0 q Z W QW w w Q.d p W x¢ H O O O Q¢ d¢ H 0 U 2) U ti 0 w U 0 U) N cn P" i ^ [� �n oo O \.D t` 00 00 N 'n O 'n O 'n O O O ^ CDON M �t kn I0D b [� 000 00 ON Cl O O .~. ^-" ^' .N� C 2 O 8 CV N m 00 Os O _ � ^ '7 O O O O O O O O O O O O �-•+ �--� ^ �"' ""' O O O O O O O O �--� �--' O D1 ON O\ O1 O', ON O� ON O� D, O% O1 O1 O� O� Q1 Q1 01 Q1 01 O, O O O O O O O O. C) C) O O m m M M M cn rn Cl) m M Cl) M M M M m m M m Cl) M M O O O O O O O O O O O O _O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r- ,� ,--i O O O O O O C) C) C) C) C) lei N N N N N N N N = w 7 'd 00 V^ ,� .~-, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DO 00 00 00 r N cM V LD M I— 00 m O r N M�r LO CO I— CO M O N M V LO CO 1— M M O r N M V J r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N- N N N m M M co Cl) W y N C ao C .� O G 0 C O d M C1 C d E z m 0)0) Z 0 L c d` /7 T C _N y' a am N O O O O O p O O O O O N N 00 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O O N� O M M M O\ 01 O\ � 00 � 00 00 DO 00 00 00 00 0i 00 00m 00 0CD 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 U 01 O\ O\ O\ 01 Q� Q Q Q Q Q ¢¢ Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q¢ Q a°pi o o ¢ a� rn rn rn rn ON rn 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 x 3 00� Q 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q¢ ¢¢ Q � 333 33333 333 3�Z� cn w.,, ooaaQaa¢ aaQaa0',¢a¢a¢QQa o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w A A A A A AAA A A A A w w www("wwwr�wwwww w z J LU cl Lu z uU Q w 0 J 0 M 333�33aaaa 3 �HrnUDwwaHHHHHHH�-E• �� � �� 3330 �aa aaaxxxx w� w�"v�r3aWwwv�v�v��n�v�v�Mv� may 00 Q+ _o E� Fx- > x x > > > r-��Oj"' v 3 3 3 3 � F' w w F' 'ti M M M M M M M M M M �n M N N o v 00 o o O ,n p r/� ,n z z Q 3 3 cn N N N N N N N N N M o MD � 'n to to to O O O V O O oo (V l� f` [� O N N 00 M M O O O Cr �n v� �O 1p h '-r "� M M M M M M M 'ct rr M M 0 M Cl, � '�Y N M M C) 'CD �r V th �t V �r 'n "r " -i' N �O "O M M M \O rr v �t �r tt V:Zr U W Z O Q x � Q Q H H Oz z z z W ¢vU AQ xaa �"> x ¢ O zz x¢.3+ �3?zxa¢ �C�w C.,) aA.a a wr�Ww�vd ¢y xH,+�w + O r3. W w ¢ W � U a 0 0 > > z U U �,; ] ++ c7QwA U-Qzw >�¢A�xawww� O�,�wwFaQ got z ti; ti z Q w 3 0 3 3 x Q¢ F.o A o x w W O U W x z x a A° a W Q wA Q O O z Zr- H z H ¢ �' � u" A a�Qx�"a¢w�>ww¢�¢aa�wxw.aau3zzWx O ti aw. Q co') En X Q Q O O U w ri U w O O Q A rz rWw O C7 x U U ti U Q C7 W o0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 _o 0 0 0 0 0 00 rn o 0 O O OO O O O O O O O O O ON O O O O O O O O N MO W O O O O O CD O p OO OO p O O O OO 00 .O O O O :O O O O O O N N N N N N N '� .--� '-• .� In kn kn kn N N N N N N N N N N N N --� -" --• •--• ,_.., -+ N N N N N N N N N N ~ N N N N � O O cCj LO - kl M (D ch 00 (h Cr Ct CY) �r v (0 � 0o 6) O r m u V) (D r` a0 O 'T V V U7 V) U j M U. U7 LO U7 (O (O ((D M (O co (O (O (O J iii An-'LiFlicy HAILAI � UST FEMA ,REGION 10 NTH DIV 130 228T" ST SW BOTHELL WA 98021-9796 425-487-4600 EPA L/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC 1200 6T" AVE MD-126 SEATTLE WA 98101 end LORI LULL US ARMY CORPS/ENGINEERS ATTN REGULATORY BRANCH PO BOX 3755 SEATTLE WA 98124 lori.c.lull@usace.army.mil DEPT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov PAUL ROGERS ,,,�TURAL RESOURCES CVN SVC 935 POWELL AVE SW RENTON WA 98055 Pi11 rnnercfiiiWa U9da MARSHA ENGEL PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 210 11 °" AVE SW STE 401 OLYMPIA WA 98504-0900 marsha.engel@psp.wa.gov Ed JAMEY TAYLOR WA NATURAL HERITAGE Landdauau Associates DNR SEPA CENTER Landau BOX 47015 DNR PO eheavey@landauinc.com POBOOLYMPIA WA 98504-7015 PO BOX 47014 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7014 sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov DEPT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PO BOX 48343 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8343 gretchen.kaehier@dahp.wa.gov LAURA ARBER (saltwater) WDFW REGION 4 OFFICE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012-1296 laura.arber@dfw.wa.gov US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVCE �'/510 DESMOND DR SE #102 LACEY WA 98503 Zach Hughes NOAA Fisheries zach. hu hes noaa. ov BOB ZEIGLER DEPT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PO BOX 43200 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-3155 sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov BRANDON REYNON PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPT 3009 E PORTLAND AVE TACOMA WA 98404 brandon.re non nri r--fl.—kLibe-com David Radabaugh Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 1601h Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 d avid _ ra da ba ugh a c�v Janet Curran NOAA Fisheries Service Janet.curran _noaa gov LAURA MURPHY TRIBAL ARCHAEOLOGIST MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172NO AVE SE AUBURN WA 98092 laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DIVISION ►/ATTN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWEI 39015 172NO AVE SE AUBURN WA 98092 David Pater Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160t'' Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 DAPA461 ECY.WA.GOV Randy McIntosh Salmon Habitat Biologist Clifford I Habitat Conservation Division National NOAA Fisheries Doulu Randy. mcintoshCa noaa.gov isheries Service a. ov 0 Hugh Shipman Department of Ecology HSHIAaj@ECy V11A.GO Doc. I.D. Tamara Fix From: T amara Fix Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:26 PM To: 'lori.c.Iull@usace.army.mill; 'paul.rogers@wa,uscla.gov; 'ECY RE SEPA UNIT'; marsha.engel@psp.wa.gov'; 'eheavey@laundauinc.com'; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov'; 'sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov'; 'laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us'; 'laura.arber@dfw.wa gov,, 'brandon.reynon@puyalluptribe.com'; 'david,radabaugh@ecy.wa-gov'; 'zach.hughes@noaa,gov; janet.curran@noaa.gov'; 'dapa461@ecy-wa.gov; Cc: randy.mcintosh@noaa-gov'; 'doug.rushton@noaa.gov'; 'hshi461@ecy wa.gov' Janet Shull Subject: Land Use Public Hearing Attachments: 20140227115111.pdf Attached is a notice of public hearing for the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement project in the City of Federal Way. The Senior Planner for this project is Janet Shull. Tamara Fix From Tamara Fix Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:29 PM To: 'eheavey@iandauinc.com' Subject: FW. Land Use Public Hearing Attachments: 20140227115111.pdf Attached is a notice of public hearing for the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement project in the City of Federal Way. The Senior Planner for this project is Janet Shull. 1 ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE jIO 9TFi AVENUE SEATTLE, XVA 919104-2017 unvasseartlearcl hdiocese, oro November 26, 2013 City of Federal Way Attn: Janet Shull, Senior Planner 33325 8" Ave. South Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: File #12-103812-00-SH - 2nd Resubmittal for Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stairway Replacement Dear Ms. Shull, In response to your letter dated 8NOV 13, this is the second rsubmittal for the subject project, as requested. The first resubmittal dated July 2013 proposed I90 ft. of hard armoring and 220 ft. of soft armoring, based on the analysis and recommendations of GeoResources. Your letter prescribes a total of 190 ft. of armoring, comprised of 100 ft. of hard armoring and 90 ft. of soft armoring beginning at the west property line. The owner relies on the recommendations of GeoResources, and therefore believes more armoring is necessary. However, given the desire to protect the bluff as soon as possible from further damage and restore beach access, the owner must defer to the City's prescribed armoring. Enclosed are the following, as requested: ■ Revised SEPA checklist with revised section B. Le fill quantity, rev. 24NOV 13. • Revised site plan, sheet 4 of 4, dated 11/26/13 with armoring revisions per your 8NOV 13 letter. The owner trusts this is sufficient information for the SEPA determination to be made and requests the City to Proceed as soon as possible with that and scheduling the public hearing. Please let me know if you need further information. I can be reached at telephone number 206-382-4851. Sincerely, Ed Foster, Director Property and Construction Services Archdiocese of Seattle Encl. Copy w/out encl.: Keith Schembs, LEG, Principal, GeoResources RESUBMITTED NOV 2 8 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS lt6p,e, 8m 1,� � L s71ri1v -V�" e ITH ;-cN Qs { 3 rA4D � Aa4qe,-,-e ja—c G.I�o jare� Souj2-Ces r z t' ,;?-/, 7 // --/-- ('wry of A. w� sb)-A� pn4b� OFO-- &/L P� 614- & (0 jl-wr"q�� , r4wo 4�4!140,2-4 Janet Shull From: Zach Hughes - NOAA Federal <zach.hughes@noaa.gov> Sent:Monday, January 13, 2014 2:21 PM To: Janet Shull Cr Tina Piety, Matthew Longenbaugh - NOAA Federal; Arber, Laura (DFW) Subject: Re: City of Federal Way Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Ms. Shull, Thank you for providing a copy of the Determination of Non -significance for the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement project. This response is to notify you that NMFS disagrees with the DNS. The purpose of this notification is to provide clarity on NMFS' position regarding this and similar projects effects for listed species and their designated critical habitat, and to provide the rationale for our position. NMFS disagrees with the DNS for the following reasons: The project is creating new hard armoring that will interrupt sediment supply to a documented forage fish spawning beach. This will create long term impacts to the quality of spawning material throughout the affected drift cells. Additionally, the installation will remove some riparian vegetation that will create short to moderate term impacts on nutrient and prey input to the marine nearshore environment that will negatively impact critical habitat function for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. We understand that the scale of the project is greatly reduced from the original design specifications, and appreciate the efforts that the applicant, City of Federal Way, WDFW, and consultants have put forward to minimize the impacts of the proposed structure. However, any new hard armoring, particularly in undeveloped and high value habitats such as the project area, is going to create long term adverse effects to ecosystem function for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and forage fish. NMFS is consulting with the Corps of Engineers regarding this project, and we will provide a copy of the consultation upon completion to the City of Federal Way. Again, I want to thank you for the efforts that the City has put forth to reduce project impacts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Zach Zach Hughes Marine Ecologist National Marine Fisheries Service Email: zach.hu hes noaa. ov Phone: (360)753-6052 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Tina Piety CI ina.Piety�a7o.cityoffederalway.cym> wrote: Hello, Attached you will find the DNS, staff evaluation, and environmental checklist for the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The location is 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA. If you have any comments and/or questions, please contact Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, at 253-835-2644, or ianet.shull a,cityoffederalway.com. Thank you, Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant II Department of Community and Economic Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 753-83s-2601 Fax 43--835-2609 Janet Shull From: Arber, Laura (DFW) <Laura.Arber@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:19 PM To: Racheal Villa Cc: Pater, David (EC ); Janet Shull; Zach Hughes - NOAA Federal Subject: RE: Archbishop of Seattle Project NWS-2012-860 - revised drawings (Drawings Updated - 2nd Round) Attachments: Requiring or Recommending Mitigation 5002.pdf Hello Racheal, Thanks for submitting the most recent Archbishop of Seattle plan revisions. I have also received the DNS from Federal Way. The WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates that the Archbishop of Seattle has minimized the impacts from the originally proposed project. After discussions with WDFW management regarding the proposed project, recent findings of documented surf smelt eggs (priority habitat species), and a feeder bluff feeding diverging drift cells, which is a habitat of special concern, WDFW cannot permit the project as currently proposed. The shoreline protection will be located on documented forage fish spawning habitat and result in the permanent loss of this habitat. Although the proposed mitigation including removal of the barge skeleton, tires and pile removal, etc. are all beneficial, it is out -of kind mitigation and does not address or compensate for the loss of natural processes. I have attached WDFWs Mitigation Policy, "POL-M5oo2 REQUIRING OR RECOMMENDING MITIGATION", which states under number 5. "Complete mitigation ensures no loss of habitat functions or values, or populations." The WDFW concurs with the Dept. of Ecology's statements, as detailed in an email dated August 7, 2013, to the City of Federal Way, that "some stabilization is justifiable for protecting the new stairway. But justification of need for the remaining rock bulkhead and bioengineering (logs and rock) is not well documented within the revised report and updated geological hazard assessment." The proponent is entitled to replace the existing 45 ft timber bulkhead with an approved design, preferably bio- engineered with the minimum length necessary to protect the new stairway. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife I Marine Habitat Biologist 116o18 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98012 I P. (425)379-2306 I Laura.ArberPdfw.wa.&oy I Hours M-Th. 7:30-3:30 From: Racheal Villa[ma iIto: racheal@soundviewconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:38 PM To: Arber, Laura (DFW) Cc: Ripple Gus (Gus.Ripple@seattlearch.org) Subject: FW: Archbishop of Seattle Project NWS-2012-860 - revised drawings (Drawings Updated - 2nd Round) Hello Laura, How are you? I left a voice message for you about project updates and wanted to make sure that you have the most recent revisions for the Archbishop of Seattle project in Federal Way as soon as possible. For expediency, I am forwarding the email (below) generated for Federal information. It contains all the revisions and in the last paragraph of this email, I also address the likely change in the amount of beach nourishment that will be required in front of the rock wall per our previous discussions/emails. Please respond at your earliest opportunity so that we can discuss the revised project description and any additional information that you would likely need to complete a review of this project (finally!). We expect that the City review will move much more quickly now with the recently revised proposal reflecting the City's prescribed armoring lengths (see below for letter citation). I hope this email finds you well and that you will have a chance to discuss this project with me soon. Thank you, Racheal Villa Senior Biologist Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, 'X'A 98333 Office: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 Mobile: 253.973.6833 racheal @soundviexvconsultants.com Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprehensive Assessment, Planning, and Permitting Services From: Racheal Villa Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:19 PM To: 'Perry, Randel 3 NWS' Cc: Zach Hughes - NOAA Federal; Ripple Gus (Gus. RI le seattlearch.or ) Subject: Archbishop of Seattle Project NWS-2012-860 - revised drawings (Drawings Updated - 2nd Round) Dear Randel, The scope of the Archbishop of Seattle Project (Corps Reference NWS-2012-860) beach armoring length has recently been substantially reduced and the project revision was recently submitted to City of Federal Way. This email provides a summary of the revised lengths of shoreline armoring and additional revisions. The armoring treatment lengths have been revised from three hundred eighty (380) linear feet of rockery bulkhead plus three hundred forty (340) linear feet of soft armoring using LWD and rock (per the original project JARPA submitted August 2012), to a length of one hundred ninety (190) linear feet of total shoreline armoring (45 linear feet is replacement of the existing wood pile bulkhead in any configuration). The first project revision was submitted by the Applicant in September 2013 after regulatory responses, coordination between City of Federal Way and Department of Ecology, and further geotechnical analysis of the bluff. The revised geotechnical report recommends implementation of one hundred ninety (190) linear feet of rockery bulkhead and two hundred twenty (220) linear feet of soft armoring (GeoResources, 2013). The first project revision reflected these recommendations. The second project revision, submitted to the City of Federal Way in November 2013, was submitted for timely approval of the significantly reduced lengths of shoreline armoring, per City of Federal Way prescriptive measures for the project (City of Federal Way letter addressed to project planner Dale Yeager, dated November 8, 2013). In addition, the overall project revision reflects a modified mitigation area that has been reduced commensurate with the reduction of project impacts and in order to further minimize beach habitat disturbances. Please find two pdf attachments containing details of the most recent, November 2013, project revisions. The project descriptions remain the same beyond the change in lengths of armoring and the mitigation area. The new shoreline armoring length will include a maximum of one hundred (100) linear feet of rockery bulkhead and ninety (90) linear feet of soft armoring, beginning at the west property line. The reduced mitigation area will include the removal of timber pile bulkhead, large tires used for previous stairway landing, grounded barge frame to a depth of one (1) foot in the beach substrate and any items of loose debris within the mitigation area directly waterward of the new project area. The reduced mitigation area will preclude the removal of the easternmost pile dolphin and any additional debris items not adjacent to the revised project area. Please review the attached documents and provide feedback as soon as possible. I understand that Zach Hughes of NOAA Fisheries has requested additional documentation and project revisions to the soft armoring treatments, according to the findings and discussions from the October 30, 2013 site visit by Zach Hughes, Phil Dionne of WDFW, and Applicant representatives. The documentation and project revisions were requested in late October and early November prior to the recent (second) project revisions. At this time, I would like to ask Zach Hughes if we should discuss the recent project revisions and the implications of those on any additional necessary documentation and/or project revisions. Additional relevant project information will include the anticipated amount of beach nourishment will be reduced to seventeen (17) cubic yards of approved beach substrate material to be placed adjacent to the hard armoring (rock bulkhead) by WDFW, per calculations provided by Laura Arber in an email on March 11, 2013. As always, please call or email with questions or comments. Thank you, Racheal Villa Senior Biologist Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Office: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 Mobile: 253,973.6833 racheal soundviewconsultants.cam Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprehensive _assessment, Planning, and permitting 5enices Department of Fish and Wildlife POLICY TITLE: Requiring or Recommending Mitigation Replaces: WDW POL 3000, 3001 and 3002, all dated 1011192; WDW POL 3003, dated 9/16/92; WDF Policy 410, dated 9/10/90; and WDF Policy 404, dated 51I187 See Also: Commission Policies POL-M5002 Efrective Dam: 0 - /t /911 Approved B -rcdor POL-M5002 RE U RING QR RECOMMENDING MITIGATION This policy applies to all habitat protection assignments where the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is issuing or commenting on environmental protection permits, documents, or violation settlements; or when seeking commensurate compensation for impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from oil or other toxic spills. L Goal is to achieve no loss of habitat functions and values. The goal of WDFW is to maintain the functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat in the state. We strive to protect the productive capacity and opportunities reasonably expected of a site in the future. In the long-term, WDFW shall seek a net gain in productive capacity of habitat through restoration, creation, and enhancement. Mitigation credits and debits shall be based on a scientifically valid measure of habitat function, value, and area. Ratios shall be greater than 1:1 to compensate for temporal losses, uncertainty of performance, and differences in functions and values. 2. WDFW uses the followin definition of miti ati n• avoidin impacts is the highest mitigation riori "Mitigation" means actions that shall be required or recommended to avoid or compensate far impacts to fish, wildlife, or habitat from the proposed project activity. The type(s) of Mitigation required shall be considered and implemented, where feasible, in the following sequential order of preference: A. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. B. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. C. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. D. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. E. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. F. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures to achieve the identified goal. 3. NME K requires miti ation w en issuing environmental permits or documents. 4. WDFW recommends miti ati n an ermits or documents issued b other a envies. 5- Cvmnlete miti anon ensures no Iris (habitat functions or value, nr populations. Complete mitigation is achieved when mitigation elements in number 2 (A-F) ensures no loss of habitat functions or values, or fish and wildlife populations. Habitat loss and mitigation success shall be measured with the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) or other method acceptable to WDFW. 6• On -site in kind miti anon is the hi hest priori WDFW priorities for mitigation location and type, in the following sequential order of Preference, are: A. On -site, in -kind. B. Off -site, in -kind. C. On -site, out -of -kind. D. Off -site, out -of -kind. For off -site mitigation to be accepted, the project proponent must demonstrate to WDFW's satisfaction that greater habitat function and value can be achieved off -site than on -site. Combination of the four types may be accepted. "On -site" means on or adjacent to the Project impact site. "In -kind" means the same species or habitat that was impacted. Out -of -kind mitigation is not acceptable for impacts to priority habitats and species, with two exceptions: (1) priority habitats and species that are at greater risk can be substituted for impacted priority habitats and species; and (2) for hydraulic projects, WDFW shall consider off -site and/or out -of -kind mitigation where equal or better biological functions and values are provided (see number 8 below). Priority habitats, and habitats of priority species, may be replaced at a level greater than the impacts of the project on those habitats and species. 7. For off -site fshlit' at' n miti ation must occur in the same Water esource lnvento Area WRIA as the im acts. Exceptions to the above must be approved by the director. For federal endangered or threatened species, mitigation must occur within the habitat supporting the same Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). WDFW ma not limit miti anon too -site in -kind m ration when makin decisions on h draulic ro'ect a rovals for infrastructure develo meat projects. The State Legislature has declared that it is the policy of the state to authorize innovative mitigation measures by requiring state regulatory agencies to consider mitigation proposals for infrastructure projects that are timed, designed, and located in a manner to provide equal or better biological functions and values compared to traditional on -site, in -kind mitigation proposals. For these types of projects, WDFW may not limit the scope of options in a mitigation plan to areas on or near the project site, or to habitat types of the as same type contained on a project site. When making a permit decision, WDFW shaif consider whether the mitigation plan provides equal or better biological functions and values, compared to the existing conditions, for the target resources or species identified in the mitigation plan. The factors WDFW must consider in making this decision are identified in RCW 9Q.74.02Q (3}. Also see RCW 75.20.099 and Chapter 90.74 RCW. 9. When WDFW is issuin a H draulie Pro'ect Approval in relation to ate or federal cleanu sites and WDFW is thesole decision-mak WD W can nl require mitig4fianifthe sediment dred in or ca in actions do not result in a cleaner a uatic environment and e ual or be er habitat functions and values. When other agencies are decision -makers, recommendations for mitigation may be made under other state or federal authority to protect habitat functions and values. 10. When WDFW' issuing a H d rauIic Pro'ect Approval and is the sole decision -maker. WDFW can re ue but cannot re wire "habitat miti ation" for maintenance dred in of existin Haul able channels and berthin areas. The phrase, "habitat mitigation" is analogous to compensatory mitigation. See RCW 75.20.325. When other agencies are decision -makers, recommendations for mitigation may be made under other state or federal authority to protect habitat functions and values. 11. Preservin at-ris hi h uali riori habits# a be considered as art of an accegable miti ation plan. When high quality areas of priority habitats or habitats of priority species are at risk, preservation of those habitats may be accepted as part of a mitigation plan, as long as there is no loss of habitat function. 12. Habitat replacement is referred to hatcheries for fish miti ation. Commission policy directs WDFW to give priority to natural production rather than hatchery production, within habitat capabilities. 13. Mitigation a fish made urchased from aquatic farmers. If WDFW requires, as part of a mitigation agreement, that resident hatchery game fish be stocked, RCW 77.18.020 requires that WDFW notify the project proponent that the fish may be purchased from a private aquatic farmer. WDFW shall specify fish health requirements, pounds or numbers, species, stock, and/or race of the fish to be provided. 14. Where authority exists strive to maintain recreational and harvest ODDortunities. 15. Approved habitat miti ation measures shall be based on best available science. 16. M'ti ation lens hall be r uir d for a ro'ect with i ificant im acts. Mitigation plans shall include the following:. • Baseline data • Estimate of impacts • Mitigation measures • Goals and objectives • Detailed implementation plan • Adequate replacement ratio • Performance standards to measure whether goals are being reached • Maps and drawings of proposal • As -built drawings • Operation and maintenance plans (including who will perform) • Monitoring and evaluation plans (including schedules) • Contingency plans, including corrective actions that will be taken if mitigation developments do not meet goals and objectives • Any agreements on performance bonds or other guarantees that the proponent will fulfill mitigation, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and contingency plan. 17. Proven miti ation techni ues must be used. Experimental mitigation techniques are allowable only if advance mitigation is being performed and will be fully functional prior to the project impacts. 18. Miti atian shall roceed alon with ro'ect construction. Mitigation measures are an integral part of a construction project and shall be completed before or during project construction, except projects with impacts that have no proven mitigation techniques. Those projects require advance mitigation. 19. Del4 Md mitigation shall inc� Iude replacement that_ s.greater_than losses. Mitigation that is implemented after project construction, or that requires a long time to reach replacement value, shall include additional habitat value (over and above replacement value) equal to the loss through time. 20. WDFW shall determine im acts and mitigation. WDFW shall determine the project impact, significance of impact, amount of mitigation required, and amount of mitigation achieved, based on the best available information, including the applicant's plans and specifications. For large projects with potentially significant impacts, this will be based on review of studies approved by WDFW. 21. Cumulat_ five irnnacts ofnro'ec#s shall be considered. Cumulative impacts of projects shall be considered and appropriate measures taken to avoid or minimize those impacts. 22. Pro'ect ro onent a s miti atian c sts. Mitigation costs may include but are not limited to: A. Studies to determine impacts and mitigation needs. B. Alteration of project design. C. Planning, design, and construction of mitigation features. D. Operation and maintenance of mitigation measures for duration of project (including personnel). E. Monitoring of mitigation measures and fish and wildlife response. F. All WDFW costs including engineering analysis and input. 23. Performance hand ar other moneta assurance ma be acce ted. A performance bond, letter of credit, escrow account, or other written financial guarantee may be accepted to ensure that the project proponent will fulfill mitigation requirements, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and contingency plans. The amount of the bond should cover the costs plus 10 percent. 24. Mi#i ation site steal! be rotected for the Iife of the m'ect. The mitigation site snail be protected permanently, or at a minimum, for the life of the project. This protection shall be through conservation easement, deed restriction, donation to WDFW, or other legally binding method. 25. WDFW shall seek miti at"on for unmiti ate rojects. WDFW shall seek mitigation for unmitigated or undermitigated existing projects. Criteria for prioritizing unmitigated projects are: A. Fish and wildlife losses from the project. B. Potential gains of fish and wildlife. C. Likelihood of achieving mitigation. D. Time required to achieve mitigation. E. Support from other agencies and tribes. F. Presence of priority habitats and species. G. Cost to WDFW. 26. Compliance monitorin shall be erf rmed as fundin allow . 27. Miti at'on bankin ma be an acne table form of miti anon. The term "mitigation bank" as used here refers to a habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement project undertaken by a project proponent to act as a bank of credits to compensate for habitat impacts from future development projects. Credits and debits shall be based on area or a scientifically valid measure of habitat function and value acceptable to WDFW, such as the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). The use of credits from a mitigation bank as a form of compensation shall occur only after the standard sequencing of mitigation negotiations (avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, and then compensate). Habitat units may be traded or sold. 28. Terms of miti ation mu t be documented. A mitigation contract is necessary to document the terms of the mitigation. Mitigation contracts may take several forms: A. Mitigation agreement (must be approved by Office of Attorney General). B. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order. C. Conditions on an environmental permit. D. Statements in a final environmental impact statement. E. Conservation easement. F. Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) site certification. G. Landowner Landscape Plan. 29. Habitat and Lands Services ProgoM coordinates all miti anon ra ects exce t Columbia and Snake River mainstem fish miti ation ro'ects that are coordinated b the Intergovernmental Fisheries Program. The program that coordinates the mitigation projects is responsible for coordinating with all other programs and regions that have interest or involvement in the project. 30. Facilities shall be transferred to the a _propriate ro r m for ana ement. When mitigation planning is completed, responsibility for any facilities (land, fish cultural facility, etc.) shall be transferred to the appropriate program and region. During the Iatter stages of planning, the managing program shall be phased into the process. 31. ana in ry ams shall f llow the mitt ation con act. The program and region managing a mitigation facility or project shall follow the terms of the mitigation contract at all times. No deviations shall be made from the mitigation contract unless approved by the program that negotiated the contract. Janet Shull From: Theresa Turpin <tturpin@landauinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:55 AM To: Janet Shull Subject: ABRC Attachments: SKMBT C55013111208340.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Sorry to add another item, 1 am working on a project in Olympia and was doing some additional research on Nationwide Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, and I did come across the attached information. This may be more than you need to know but it is good information to provide the client. The Seattle District Corps of Engineers may have some recommendations for soft stabilization. On the regulatory side, essentially what could happen is if Ecology determines the work is waterward of the OHW, then the project needs to obtain approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Coprs). Typically, the applicant wouid apply for what is referred to as a Nationwide permit (NWP) which is a streamlined process with the Corps. However, the General Conditions for the Seattle District, specifically general condition number 3, does not allow NEW bank stabilization in the tidal waters of Puget Sound under a Nationwide permit (information attached). What this means is the NEW stabilization would require an individual permit, which can take anywhere from 6 to 10 months to obtain. Additionally, the applicant needs to demonstrate the stabilization project incorporates the least environmentally damaging practicable bank stabilization methods. Methods include bioengineering (plantings); biotechnical design; root wads; large woody materials; native plantings and beach nourishment. Since I only reviewed the applications for consistency with the City of Federal Way Revised Code, I don't know if the applicant has already applied or is applying for a corps permit for the work, but this is good information to have. Theresa Theresa Turpin, AICP ♦ Associate Landau Associates, Inc. 950 Pacific AvenLie. Suite 515, Tacoma, WA 98402 direct 253.284.4,976 ♦ main 253.926.2493 cell 253.861.8570♦ fax 253.926.2531 ttu in landauinc.com ♦ www.landauinc.com Landau Associates is proudly carbon neutral through our sustainable practices and financial support of U.S.-based carbon -reduction projects. NOTICE: This Communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without espying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. From: co ier landauinc.com rmailto:copier landauinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:35 AM To: Theresa Turpin Subject: Message from KMBT C550 A�kCITY OF Federal Way November 8, 2013 Ms. Dale Yeager Yeager Associates 14323 116d' Avenue East Puyallup, WA 98374 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Re: File #12-103812-0(.,Sg? TRANSMITTAL OF 3" PARTY REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS Parades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Bulkhead and Stairway Replacement; 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way Dear Ms. Yeager: A 2ad round of third -party technical review of the modified proposal for a bulkhead, soft shore armoring, and stair repair and supportive materials has been completed by Landau Associates and reviewed by staff. The applicant was provided with an electronic copy of the report on Thursday, October 17, 2013. Staff also met with you and Mr. Ripple on Friday, October 25, 2013, to discuss the third party review. As you are aware, the next step in the city's review process is issuance of a SEPA decision. Upon consideration of the 2nd third party technical review on the modified shoreline stabilization proposal within the context of the Federal Way Revised Code (F WRQ, the .Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the application materials still do not demonstrate that the proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements 1FWRC I5.05.050(1)(a)(v)]. While we recognize the modified proposal does significantly reduce the proposed shoreline stabilization from the original, (original: 380 feet of hard and 340 feet of greatsoft-ser than armoring vs. revised: ary feet of hard and 220 feet of soft -shore armoring), the proposal still is greater than the minimum necessary. We cannot issue a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) or Modified Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on a proposal that is not approvable under our development regulations, and for which mitigation is not identifiable. Therefore, in order to issue a SEPA decision on the proposal, we are requesting that you modify the shoreline stabilization elements of your proposal to: • Eliminate the 220 feet of "soft shore armoring" proposed east of the proposed bulkhead. • Further reduce the length of the bulkhead per the recommendations of the Landau third party review as follows: o Utilize soft shore stabilization methods for station points 0 to 0+25 to serve as a transition from no armoring to hard armoring o Utilize bulkhead for the area within station points 25 to 125 o Transition from bulkhead to soft shore armoring from station point 125 east to the point where the proposed bulkhead terminates Ms Yeajer November 8, 2013 Page 2 With the requested above modifications to the proposal, staff is supportive of your project. We also considered your request to imp lenient a sort -of conditional/phased approval scenario, whereby a 2nd phase of stabilization could be implemented upon demonstration of further erosion activity without the need for another formal permit approval. Our initial assessment is that this would be difficult to craft within the constraints of the SW. Ecology staff is unaware of any precedent for such an approval. Based on your geotechnical engineer's estimate of two to three inches of erosion per year it does not appear that any substantial improvements would be at risk of damage within the five year life of the permit. In addition, please submit the following information required to complete the evaluation of the proposal and issue a SEPA determination: ■ Provide information on fill quantities related to the proposed bulkhead construction. The bulkhead detail drawings specify crushed gravel back fill as well in conjunction with the bulkhead construction, but the SEPA checklist specifies no fill (Section B. Le) — please complete this section of the checklist. Please provide four copies of your resubmittal items along with the enclosed resubmittal form. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter or project status, please contact me at 253-835-2644, orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate r Planner enc: Resubmittal Form c: Gus Ripple, Archdiocese Landau Associates David Pater, Department of Ecology Doc. LD 64442 12-103812 Janet Shull From: Theresa Turpin <tturpin@landauinc.com> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:54 PM To: Janet Shull Subject: RE: Federal Way revised Palisades Retreat Center project comments Has the client seen these comments? Based on this assessment from Ecology it is evident that this has a very LOW probability of being approved by Ecology. And my thoughts are the same, 190 ft is too long, the first proposal was 150 ft and the 45 ft bulkhead lasted over 50 yrs. I can reduce the budget, as I thought about it, much of the code lookup has been done (I am weird, I really enjoyed getting back into the code and the analysis/land use type work) but as you correctly stated I did spend a lot more time than I originally budgeted on the past work. However much of that work has been done, so I can decrease the budget. That being said, it appears that ecology will most likely NOT approve this and truthfully Hugh Shipman is the shoreline guru on soft and hard armoring (he teaches it). Do they really want to move forward with this revised report based on the Ecology review and comments? OR do they possibly want to investigate one of two options: Have the consultant revise the report based on Ecology comments (less hard armoring) or Get a different consultant that will provide a design that will work and that ecology will approve (again less hard armoring). So my first question is, given Ecology's comments, the probability that this won't make it through the shoreline process do they really want to move forward with the third party review? Is there a way to check with the ABRC? Let me know. I can reduce the budget but prefer to review something that is approvable by both FW and Ecology. Theresa From: Janet Shull [ma ilto:Janet. Shull@cityofFederalway.com] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:30 PM To: Theresa Turpin Subject: FW: Federal Way revised Palisades Retreat Center project comments Hi Theresa, I am just now looking at the revised budget. I was out for a week and then only in the office last week for 3 days with a major deadline taking all my attention. I am forwarding the latest in comments on revised project from David Pater and Hugh Shipman from Ecology. With regard to the budget, I understand that this is proposed as a separate budget to address reviewing the revised plans and supportive documentation — correct? The only real concern I have is that it is greater than the original review budget which may be difficult to explain to the applicant. Any thoughts you can share that I can pass on to applicant when I forward this? I believe you told me the original work was much greater than anticipated, so perhaps this budget to review the revisions is just more realistic? I just want to check in with you on this before I send it along as I can guarantee they will notice the increased amount. Best Regards, Janet From: Pater, David (ECY) [mail to:DAPA461 ECY.WA GGOV7 Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:32 PM To: Janet Shull Cc: Shipman, Hugh (ECY) . Subject: Federal Way revised Palisades Retreat Center project comments Hi Janet, Below are Ecology comments on the July 22, 2013 revised Palisades retreat Center Bulkhead and Stairway Project. Hugh Shipman's are first followed by mine . In 'a nutshell we agree that some stabilization is justifiable for protecting the new stairway. But justification of need for the remaining rock bulkhead and Bioengineering ( Logs and rock) is not well documented within the revised report and updated geological hazard assessment. We do concur as we did previously that a shoreline variance may be needed to increase the bulkhead height above the OHWM for design function reasons. I have also enclosed our original June 10" comments. Please let us know if you have any questions about our comments. Thanks David Pater Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-4253 Hugh Shipman's Comments I've looked at the revised submittal for the Palisades project in Federal Way. I'm still comfortable with the general idea of combining a conventional structure for protecting the stairway with a softer approach to reducing toe erosion in limited additional areas, but the length of shoreline proposed for stabilization still seems higher than what is necessary to provide protection from any demonstrated short-term threat. In our earlier comments we recognized the use of a conventional rock structure to provide protection to the stairs themselves, but noted that this did not require a particularly long structure. The 190' of proposed rockery seems more than is necessary to achieve this. The revised proposal extends the new rockery west of the footprint of the original pile structure, even though the portion of the stairway immediately threatened by erosion of this area is being relocated. If there is concern that the recent failure will regress farther up the slope, threatening the upper section of the stairs, perhaps realigning that upper segment would solve this more simply and more reliably, and without the need for a longer structure. If the existing failure is indeed regressive, new armor at the toe will not prevent it continuing. The proposed work also extends the rockery 90' east of the current steps to the beach, although I don't recall evidence of a structure there previously (other than the old barge and the loose tires on the beach). Their argument is that there is evidence of toe erosion and that the upper stairs extend over this section. Toe erosion is a common characteristic of an eroding bluff, particularly one identified as a feeder bluff (it's often a criterion for identifying a feeder bluff). It is not a demonstration of an imminent risk to structures at the top of a bluff. The revised proposal has reduced the length of soft stabilization, but still involves 220' of anchored logs. The basis for this appears to be evidence of toe erosion in these areas, but again, the presence of toe erosion is not a basis in itself for armoring (hard or soft). A structure consisting of large, anchored logs, can reduce toe erosion while preserving some of the ecological function of the shoreline that might be lost to a conventional rock bulkhead. Where some degree of toe protection is demonstrated to be necessary and a hard structure is not permissible, such structures are certainly a reasonable option. At the same time, my experience suggests that they are susceptible to damage during high tide storms (anchoring large buoyant structural elements successfully is a challenge) and once constructed, are likely to be repaired or replaced with hard structures in the future (such replacement may occur simply because the original structure fails, not because of any significant additional erosion of the slope). Hugh Hugh Shipman j Coastal Geologist I Department of Ecology 1 425-649-7095 hu � .�h.shipman ecy.wa.�ar► Gravel Beach (htt : rayelbeach.blo s ❑t.�om) David Pater's comments I reviewed the revised project files including the updated geo hazard assessments. Overall I found the information thorough and it did a good job of describing slope stability and previous small slope failures on the Palisades feeder bluff. The applicant's revised proposal calls for 190 feet of rocked bulkhead on the western end of the site and 220 ft of logs and large rock between logs (bioengineering) on the eastern portion. Palisades Retreat Center Fire road sfo a rotection: Applicant continues to consider logs and rock soft shore protection. Under SMP section 15.05.050 (1) (a) (ii) Soft shore alternatives area described as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization gravel berms and beach nourishment. Structural options are described as bulkheads and riprap. So this element of the project does not fall under either of these descriptions. Why this is important: because the SMP modifications table requires a CUP for hard stabilization and permits soft -shore outright (SDP). The table does mention bioengineering projects as a footnote within stabilization. I believe this element of the project is permitted it should be permitted as a CUP since it clearly is not soft shore stabilization under the Federal Way SMP. The proposed 220 feet of logs and rock to protect the Retreat Center's Fire Road: Because Federal Way fire code considers this road essential for fire protection it can be considered a unique appurtenance for the retreat center. WAC 173-27-040 (2) (g) describes appurtenances within the context of single family residential development. The large size of the retreat center and the site configuration contribute to the fire road appurtenance status for this unique shoreline use. Part of the fire road is clearly close to the edge of the top of the bluff. Although there is an upper bluff bench bordering the road before the significant slope down to Puget Sound. There is some active lower toe bluff erosion below this area of the road. But as Hugh has pointed out, toe erosion alone does the demonstrate that the road will be threaten in three years. The revised geo-hazard assessment has not adequately documented that the road will be threaten as 3 described within the Federal Way SMP sec. 15.05.050 (1) (a) (iii). Logs and rocks are not considered soft shore stabilization in the SMP (see above) so this SMP regulation should apply to this portion of the project. Rock Bulkhead and stairway replacement: The 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead in the report to is described in the context of protecting the replacement stairway and associated landing. The bulkhead is proposed for the western part of the site shoreline (linear ft. 0-200 feet on the site map and figure 3). Ecology indicated previously (June 10, 2013 Email) that replacement of the deteriorated 45 foot bulkhead is justifiable for protecting the new stairway. The proposed 190 linear feet of bulkhead for stairway protection is much harder to justify. 145 feet of this bulkhead must be considered as new hard stabilization under the City SMP. SMP sec 15.05.050 (1)(a) (v) "The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements" needs to also be taken in consideration here. 190 linear feet is not the minimum necessary. There maybe some geologic justification to add another 10-15 feet to 45 feet of bulkhead for protecting the stairway, but figure 3 in the revised Geo-hazards assessment report indicates an old unstable area west of the proposed stairway (fig 3: 0-50 feet) is well away from the new stairway. In fact one could say that the relocated mid/ lower stairway waS; moved because of this old slide area. Any rock bulkhead needs to protect the stairway landing and adjacent lower stairway. The east section of proposed bulkhead (fig 3: 100-190 feet) is not justifiable as it doesn't seem to protect any structure. Overall figure three in the Geotech analysis indicates some minor historic slope failure on the proposed bulkheaded shoreline, but does not provide justification for 190 feet of rock bulkhead to protect a new stairway. These two sections of the proposed rock bulkhead would be very difficult to justify under Section SMP sec 15.05.050 (1) (shoreline stabilization). 45 to perhaps 60 feet of bulkhead adjacent to the lower stairway and landing is more justifiable. I've enclosed our June 10th previous project comments. << Message: FW: Palisades Bulkhead Ecology Comments >> David David Pater Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-4253 4 41 CITY f]Ifr Fe&,l Cal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S$1MCE6 33325 8" Avenw:;South PO It .N 9718 Federal Way WA, 98063.9718 253-9352607; FaX 253-835. -2609 w ww.c itvaffedera lwa.l.cocn SIGN INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Project Name: YC,-(il t,1 eK104LJ 4 6 CAL Project File No: 1 oC ^ 1 6 33 f .2 — sH Project Address: 7 760 5 c-) D ; l Pc> ; 'J f� Jj Installed Sy: 4 _ayi1 W(tvbate of Installation: � v Location of Installation: �"7 ®D 6 0) Da � 7v' f � _ r e f ev,a- w Aril 0ira W C,4 `_120 ? (-c) P, e,,(- -� I u�ii�ii~iq�M.d M�1 hiWhiyYiyia li�rilA'ii"itlMi•tlYi.a+i�i-ii"Ii"ii"ii-iai i1 pa ii�iir`rurri�ii�ii"hi�iro: oeo�i �Yln ..�.*.. :,grasie ��K.r >ryk iyn �ar:.�. �ar.:.gr .M• �M• ;rMw 'hlr err •YI• �a�: �y ,,iu. .�,r �wN yp�br, �.. .y r .a.: .a• ,rr Iry .�.�N .ia. I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the installation standards -of the Department of.'Commtmity Development Service's "Instructions for Obtaining & Posting PuM)lic Notification Signs" and that the sign will be maintained until a fmal decision is issued on -the land use action. f understand that failure to return this certificate within five days of posting Ukay result in delays, notice of corrections, and re-wallings at the applicant's expense. Installer' Name Ins#al er's Signature Bulletin B036—. m&u t 18, 2004 Pago l of 1 Date Phone kAFiandouts\Sign hastallgioll Certilicuto ia/ze 3DVd iV3Nl�]�l SSQCSI_1d 718V6Z8E9Oz eZ:za ZzeZ?ez,'6e - - VOLPAI 589 RECEIVED •4r703413 Date 4^ . 19 —fit— AUG 17 Z012 The undersigned, _ Rcdetavtoxis_ corporation, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY grants to P,f1GET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, the right to install, maintain, replace, remove am toss an electric CDS line, in;:Wng all necessary poles or towers, wires and. Fixtures, and to keep this line free of interference From trees or other j 3 arolsth %ZI r } ,sErwied in the County of T State of Washiwgron; u ° _ Y.. IC -a, the vest >bxll o� tba •faido;kildj� 'dsi�' ect :... t- man 8�6 a ian: �, ... ��:_1"p�.h i ; .�. ,- i� �..• 2�idq"•. tit • �ar"6 j/4i14 �r� t.�� ���1• � _ r.. 8 *1i7dZ the :;outH lira of aafd Govan a. .� f .f #S laift t6ei9t:ar less, to the soutbsreet cotre r of"said government lot 3; thezi6s'ieorth'2197AG. feet, more or lose, to meander line of Puget Sound; than" alo:yg •tits meander line of Puget Sound north 88' east 729.3O feet, more or lessf to a point north of the place of beginning;. thence south 2220.90 feet, more or less, to point of bsgitming. TO WMR with a 30 feet strip along the south side of the vaet half of the last above described tract for right of way purposes for public highway; TOGETS&it with second class tide lapels adjoining, extending to the line•of extreme low tide; EXCEPT county roads; TOGETaR rrith easement for private road across the west 20 feat of that part of the aorthaaet quarter of the suutbwest quarter of Section 11, Township 21 north, Range 3•aaak, ;K• lying north of the Puget Sound Marine View Dz1vg, as granted by inetxu�lmt'r aordad under Auditor's .File No. 3270092. L. _ Radamptorist Fatmrs of the State of Washington Inc..a Washington corpwation B Witnessof "^!Of STATE OF WASHINGTON bn { ss COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual_ described In and who executed the within and fare oin now god that _signed the some as —free and voluntary y act pwposes therein mentioned. I! r my an and oFF1 '�p�!�7 �-y 19 1 AM. Ik ��^^' _4_•�'' oe ry u is in an for the Stme a as ing}m, JUK 81956 resi ing at STATE OF WASHINGTON AAA. T EMPER ss COUNTY OF n On this _day of Il June 19 51, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared 0erald Holm MR. and N. S. Meissen cm. _ to me known to be the President and Secretory, respectively, of = J:. a Fi the i,,Q, dory A} rt aatg�Wes the foregoing:ltist1g."nt, and o6nowled god the said Instrument to be the f oe on�valuntary.1 ddadpat' s� iol`corpgrs,r for the paf therein mentioned, and on oath stated that ar9 authwizpd to exra sold in`x . 46 and Is the corporate seal of said corporation. a r, %�hness min official seal hereto affixed the day and y It ail t i1_ �.' - � `�i: a}ory u Ic Ina or 1 ScTs o as �' O 1 residing at 1lereer Island L.p Hied for Record919. 6r A : M. ;. R6 „! of Sealdo TWO Company ROBERT A. MORRIS, County Audit" i - - 4703413 r a -A "PA 589 Date ¢ , 19' The undersigned, r: •: ..rrwsu; tocr n,-.) • ",,vat erryr Vrf)x r o s xYa .,.j, - '7:: rc •• FS':f'° ,?s: :: .. '. �•: '_-G ..,; •r5 ".I`.l't7 .,'s ^�,-c" _.c•, .; 2. :'!s-!^c .. ' r '.nar GRaj..-E: n-• r - :I :r%':�'-i; C.'Y.'�fG�: of '•'6 •l:�L+•: .ram'. r" �F1r tr:. Wv6•:. I'nir'si f ?"+ Y t•n • f7[{:w0. ;.-f e: 96 S^F..C:: 1. C•- '!.M r• „g. ' �'aP: •5y rr.s!cc .:°S''.. r)YT:•:a" .•!rc -.s^. ---c - •- -;r: -.c.c � �II..r,r�1 �y• f;:E :•n!: r-! .. •;G ✓.`.r ,•F E :•}' •:1:7r ,.: c -. ., , _ O: v,;^C —I, •E•^••-y t:r - .r IG r': .r)f'E' �;f:rr•.r0 .!..r s: iT i - �'. .. ;i F.'.'!' ).r ')r-r va.9584 PAC699 The center Ins of said electric line to be located as now staked across said property or a�claae�s �Ys rr�•Ysr) e The Company shall have access for the purposes stated and shall be responsible for damage coussd by negligence of the Company. These terms shall be binding upon the successors and assigns oftbe respective parties. In. dempSri h Fathers of the State of Washington radars B itr)c-zs STATE OF WASHINGTON weer COUNTY OF On this Cloy personally appeared before me to no known to be the Individual_ described In and who executed the within and —_signed the some as __free and voluntary act aad deed facshe eyes m� STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF IIeZIAG - j ss On this i+ day of — therein mentioned, try u is fn an or i e 50 es ingten, JUN181956 rest ing at A. A. T EMPER J Gerald Boa CSaR. and that 19 _, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared H, S. ilelssen CSSR.. to me known to be the President. and Secretary, respectively, of ID the foregoing_Wtrum►ht, and acknowledged the said instrument to be thv five an�velan the f � for rile L_iea terry act adCl f saia c�'O1ri Or s therein mentioned, and on oath stated that —. and t w sit the corporate d—avtharlud fa4)oii u• fte iald Iyrsfa977fsdf poste seal of said corporation, s r� r thiess rm�: ;officlol seal hereto affixed the day and y st a wr' v is in an or 1 ore a a '-a �vasrs t'r' residing at WmOr Island Mod for Reco,Jcr-- . +? 19Sj �3o rML ..::, X&CIL" of lea]fie 7iiie.Cvmpiay A RORERT A, MORRIS, CountyAudhar � .. � �� & - , •._ s CIO � @W6� � - .. .., � ■ . � � PAS k & ■�' ( © 30 # 2 3 Roam \ \ �3� •' } •�°� >� /g��k �. k � �� . �• :: � .� \. \� \ . . � ~®2 ��- Racheal Villa From: Kevin Broderick <kevin@broderickarchitects.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:27 PM To: Dale Yeager Cc: Ripple Gus; Racheal Villa Subject: Re: ABRC - bulkhead and easement # 4703413 The copy of the easement should be fine. Actually that overhead line associated with the easement was removed (and placed underground) when the retreat center was remodel back in 2002 so its pretty rnw-h n ,n^-+ point. Thanks, Kevin Kevin J. Broderick, AIA evin , broderickarahltect5.corn 55 S. Atlantic Street, Suite 301 Seattle, wA 58134 (206)682-7525 wY ro eri kar'chi ts.com On Jul 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Dale Yeager wrote: Gus, Unless Kevin things differently, I believe this will suffice. We should print a copy of the easement as well as the e- mail from PSE to include with our application materials. Good job Gus! Thanks for taking ca re of this. Racheal — can you make a note to include this along with the rest of the submittal materials? Thanks, Dale From: Ripple Gus m it :Gus.Ri le a le rch.or Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:20 PM TO: 'Kevin Broderick'; Dale Yeager Cc: 'Racheal Villa' Subject: FW: ABRC - bulkhead and easement # 4703413 Kevin and Dale, See below from PSE. Is this sufficient? Gus From: Bergman, Zachary mall o:a cha .ber m n se.c m Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:15 PM To: Ripple Gus Subject: RE: ABRC - bulkhead and easement # 4703413 Well, I could not find any overhead on this property. So, I don't think there are any issues with the planned bulk head. Thank you for checking in with us. Zach From: Ripple Gus [Iriaiito;Gus.Ri !e sea learch.ar ] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:00 PM To: Bergman, Zachary Subject. RE: ABRC - bulkhead and easement # 4703413 Zach, Parcel no. is 1121039010. Thanks, Gus From: Bergman, Zachary [mailto:zacha .ber man se.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:37 PM TO: Ripple Gus Subject: RE: ABRC - bulkhead and easement # 4703413 Here is a copy of the easement. Can you send me an address or parcel number for this property? Thank you, Zachary Bergman Puget Sound Energy Real Estate Representative (425) 456-2740 Zacha .Ber man PSE.com From: Ripple Gus [mailto:Gus.Ri le seattlearch.ar ] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:30 PM Ta: Bergman, Zachary Subject: ABRC - bulkhead and easement # 4703413 Zach, Could you please send me the easement language? We are planning a rock bulkhead starting at our west property line and I believe the easement is offset 20 ft. west from that. See attached photo looking south, with subject easement at the right side of the photo. The upper part of the stair (barely visible) is on the east side of the easement. The bulkhead would be down at the toe of the slope. At this point I need to verify the easement language does not conflict with this bulkhead. Thank you. Gus Ripple Building and Construction Manager Archdiocese of Seattle Ph: 206-382-4370 fax -4266 This transmission may contain privileged and for confidential information and is intended For use only by the person(s) named above. Except for the Intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication Is strictly prohlbiLed . If you have received this a -mail in error, please notify the Archdiocese of Seattle Immediately by return message to the sender or to ritvCa�s r�P,rr,, and any attachments. �—�5. _.._�q and destroy all copies of this message �p N RECEIVED AUG 17 2012 CITY ❑F FEDERAL WAY CDS �v W 0 O L U� cu cu i O W4-a ry cu U O O L m O 0- 0 - O U U) L N O N O RECEIVED AUG 1 7- 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS ME -�- q .., 49 li :�NINlp 3.S£.81.1ON ^-- --_ �r r' a 41 SO ca 4, C1} ca r— a c3 Q 2 I L. V ' � 1. ' � I F �[..• �'0.' 'r"• III .:~`A :li' .....�:_. 5 V _ e� �t- m 'Nr f Ya W41 f A J j'f L irk � sr o s� U (A � Q Q J/ a� J s r � � U � L C CU rtf�M�-y� W{ 4 in Q Y K � �I L � � Q �c Li C C�3 O ca O �a O i O Lo �i < O O L 03 L O L_ U � C6 LY] O Q m O co O O i Cl) LL Q CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 23, 2012 TO: Ann Dower, Sr Engineering Plans Reviewer Rick Perez,PE, Sr. Transportation Engineer Scott Sproul, Plans Examiner Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Chris Ingham, South King Fire & Rescue FROM: Janet Shull, AICP FOR DRC MTG. ON: September 6, 2012 - Internal FILE NUMBER(s): 12-103812-00-SH RELATED FILE NOS.: 12-103814-SH, 12-103815-SH, and 12-103816-SE PROJECT NAME: PALISADES (ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT) RETREAT BULKHEAD AND STAIRTOWER PREAP PROJECT ADDRESS: 4700 SW DASH POINT RD ZONING DISTRICT: SE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Shoreline conditional use permit, substantial development permit, variance and SEPA review for construction of bulkhead, slope stabilization & stairs. LAND USE PERMITS. SEPA, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit PROJECT CONTACT: CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE ED FOSTER 710 9TH AVE MATERIALS SUBMITTED: SEPA checklist, copy of easement, topographic survey, site plan, geotech report, shoreline permits consistency report, fish and wildlife habitat assessment report, cultural resources assessment, photo exhibit, title report, From: unknown Page: 2/2 Date: 7/26/2012 3:04:31 PM RECEIVE® MASTER LAND USE APPLICAMN DUA,KTMENT OF COMMUNM DEVELOPMEPlT SERVICES �, AUG 17 2012 33325 8* Avenue south 1?ederal way, WA 98003-6325 Fe d e ra l Wa CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 m CDS 3F s s 14 CCLkP IA-10391L - 5c 1f E✓/IP—) APPLICATION NO(S) - 1 8 f S —J -1 C foerA4 _. Project Name 1--f- Alef Date - - - -- C,en�Qll (14 L5R c Property AddrewA vfttlae r C t' � lr f •� Parcel Numbers) 0 3 1 06 K� . ''' - &*2- Project Description5/�lcC - • -�9A %F J e WE PRINT ��ajlp Type of Permit Required _ Annexation T Binding Site Plan Roundacy Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface 1vlod&ation Lot Line Elitnination I'Mapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) Process U (Site Plan Review) Process M (Pra}eet APittaval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Pmms V (Quasi -Judicial Rmnc) Process VI �SE3PA w/Project SP,PA ONy 7;ZShorclinc: Variance/Conditional Use Sbort Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Comnwdal/Residential Required Information. r v1t "t esf K . low imprnhgnsive Ian Designation Value of Existing Improvements ,Value of proposed Improvements lntematianal Building Code (IBQ: Occupancy Type Construction Type anlletin #003 - Ianua*y 1, 2011 4Gcess Applicant Nance: EW /-,Z;.57-E � Address: " 7 1 0 N city/State: ( W f tip: 9 0 f v is Phone: 2-.,24i -- 3 e -7, `f )pax: -Z V t;» - 3 !F" Z .9� 2- � G. Emil: 0-4d 5' 'rS �+G e�Xr •� e� eel Signatm: p/ J Agent (if difle+cent than Applicant) Name: DAIe ���/y,�� Address: / V3 2 3 "! 1 it9 -69 A419 • �. city/Stata: P& JI tc^ U) A ow ,26-p5 J�3 %39 V Pax: imsal. I1lC�t1 RryBl' d d/NC QS f Ae Siguatt�re: !�// Owner 4 44r 4'r io 4, 1.ut�- F.atGlttil;• . S�liltl+�. r9�Via► y'1 r 1±� r4 Paga 1 of 1 3� . -5 V, 'k-MandoutsWaster Land Use Application Janet Shull From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello Racheal, Arber, Laura (DFW) <Laura.Arber@dfw.wa.gov> Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:19 PM Racheal Villa Pater, David (ECY); Janet Shull; Zach Hughes - NOAA Federal RE: Archbishop of Seattle Project NWS-2012-860 - revised drawings (Drawings Updated - 2nd Round) Requiring or Recommending Mitigation 5002.pdf Follow up Flagged Thanks for submitting the most recent Archbishop of Seattle plan revisions. I have also received the DNS from Federal Way. The WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates that the Archbishop of Seattle has minimized the impacts from the originally proposed project. After discussions with WDFW management regarding the proposed project, recent findings of documented surf smelt eggs (priority habitat species), and a feeder bluff feeding diverging drift cells, which is a habitat of special concern, WDFW cannot permit the project as currently proposed. The shoreline protection will be located on documented forage fish spawning habitat and result in the permanent loss of this habitat. Although the proposed mitigation including removal of the barge skeleton, tires and pile removal, etc. are all beneficial, it is out -of kind mitigation and does not address or compensate for the loss of natural processes. I have attached WDFWs Mitigation Policy, "POL-M5002 REQUIRING OR RECOMMENDING MITIGATION", which states under number 5. "Complete mitigation ensures no loss of habitat functions or values, or populations." The WDFW concurs with the Dept. of Ecology's statements, as detailed in an email dated August 7, 2013, to the City of Federal Way, that "some stabilization is justifiable for protecting the new stairway. But justification of need for the remaining rock bulkhead and bioengineering (logs and rock) is not well documented within the revised report and updated geological hazard assessment." The proponent is entitled to replace the existing 45 ft timber bulkhead with an approved design, preferably bio- engineered with the minimum length necessary to protect the new stairway. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lc .t.wa, l rlrer Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife I Marine Habitat Biologist 1 16ol8 Mill creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98o12 I p. (425)379-23o6 J,aura.Arber(&-dfw.wa,gov I Hours M-Th. 7:30-3:30 From: Racheal Villa[mailto:racheal@soundviewconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:38 PM To: Arber, Laura (DFW) Cc: Ripple Gus (Gus.Ripple@seattlearch.org) Subject: FW: Archbishop of Seattle Project NWS-2012-860 - revised drawings (Drawings Updated - 2nd Round) Hello Laura, How are you? I left a voice message for you about project updates and wanted to make sure that you have the most recent revisions for the Archbishop of Seattle project in Federal Way as soon as possible. For expediency, I am forwarding the email (below) generated for Federal information. It contains all the revisions and in the last paragraph of this email, I also address the likely change in the amount of beach nourishment that will be required in front of the rock wall per our previous discussions/emails. Please respond at your earliest opportunity so that we can discuss the revised project description and any additional information that you would likely need to complete a review of this project (finally!). We expect that the City review will move much more quickly now with the recently revised proposal reflecting the City's prescribed armoring lengths (see below for letter citation). I hope this email finds you well and that you will have a chance to discuss this project with me soon. Thank you, Racheal Villa Senior Biologist Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Office: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 Mobile: 253.973.6833 rachea0soundviewconsultants.com Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprehensive _assessment, Planning, and Permitting Seances From: Racheal Villa Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:19 PM To: 'Perry, Randel J NWS' Cc: Zach Hughes - NOAA Federal; Ripple Gus (Gus.Ri le seattlearch.or ) Subject: Archbishop of Seattle Project NWS-2012-860 - revised drawings (Drawings Updated - 2nd Round) Dear Randel, The scope of the Archbishop of Seattle Project (Corps Reference NWS-2012-860) beach armoring length has recently been substantially reduced and the project revision was recently submitted to City of Federal Way. This email provides a summary of the revised lengths of shoreline armoring and additional revisions. The armoring treatment lengths have been revised from three hundred eighty (380) linear feet of rockery bulkhead plus three hundred forty (340) linear feet of soft armoring using LWD and rock (per the original project DARPA submitted August 2012), to a length of one hundred ninety (190) linear feet of total shoreline armoring (45 linear feet is replacement of the existing wood pile bulkhead in any configuration). The first project revision was submitted by the Applicant in September 2013 after regulatory responses, coordination between City of Federal Way and Department of Ecology, and further geotechnical analysis of the bluff. The revised geotechnical report recommends implementation of one hundred ninety (190) linear feet of rockery bulkhead and two hundred twenty (220) linear feet of soft armoring (GeoResources, 2013). The first project revision reflected these recommendations. The second project revision, submitted to the City of Federal Way in November 2013, was submitted for timely approval of the significantly reduced lengths of shoreline armoring, per City of Federal Way prescriptive measures for the project (City of Federal Way letter addressed to project planner Dale Yeager, dated November 8, 2013). In addition, the overall project revision reflects a modified mitigation area that has been reduced commensurate with the reduction of project impacts and in order to further minimize beach habitat disturbances. Please find two pdf attachments containing details of the most recent, November 2013, project revisions. The project descriptions remain the same beyond the change in lengths of armoring and the mitigation area. The new shoreline armoring length will include a maximum of one hundred (100) linear feet of rockery bulkhead and ninety (90) linear feet of soft armoring, beginning at the west property line. The reduced mitigation area will include the removal of timber pile bulkhead, large tires used for previous stairway landing, grounded barge frame to a depth of one (1) foot in the beach substrate and any items of loose debris within the mitigation area directly waterward of the new project area. The reduced mitigation area will preclude the removal of the easternmost pile dolphin and any additional debris items not adjacent to the revised project area. Please review the attached documents and provide feedback as soon as possible. I understand that Zach Hughes of NOAA Fisheries has requested additional documentation and project revisions to the soft armoring treatments, according to the findings and discussions from the October 30, 2013 site visit by Zach Hughes, Phil Dionne of WDFW, and Applicant representatives. The documentation and project revisions were requested in late October and early November prior to the recent (second) project revisions. At this time, I would like to ask Zach Hughes if we should discuss the recent project revisions and the implications of those on any additional necessary documentation and/or project revisions. Additional relevant project information will include the anticipated amount of beach nourishment will be reduced to seventeen (17) cubic yards of approved beach substrate material to be placed adjacent to the hard armoring (rock bulkhead) by WDFW, per calculations provided by Laura Arber in an email on March 11, 2013. As always, please call or email with questions or comments. Thank you, Racheal Villa Senior Biologist Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harbon iew Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Office: 253.514.8952 Fax: 253.514.8954 Mobile: 253.973.6833 rachead soundviewconsultants.com Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Comprehensive Assessment, Planting, and Permitting Senices 3 Department of Fish and Wildlife POL-M5002 POLICY TITLE: Requiring or Recommending Mitigation Replaces: WDW POL 3000, 3001 and 3002, 44 all dated 10/1/92; WDW POL 3003, Efre`rive Bay' dated 9/16/92; WDF Policy 410, dated 9/10/90; and WDF Policy 404, dated 5/1/87 Approved By 're:ar See Also: Commission Policies POL-M5002 REQUIRING OR RECOMMENDING MITIGATION This policy applies to all habitat protection assignments where the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is issuing or commenting on environmental protection permits, documents, or violation settlements; or when seeking commensurate compensation for impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from oil or other toxic spills. 1. Goal is to achieve no loss of habitat functions and values. The goal of WDFW is to maintain the functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat in the state. We strive to protect the productive capacity and opportunities reasonably expected of a site in the future. In the long-term, WDFW shall seek a net gain in productive capacity of habitat through restoration, creation, and enhancement. Mitigation credits and debits shall be based on a scientifically valid measure of habitat function, value, and area. Ratios shall be greater than 1:1 to compensate for temporal losses, uncertainty of performance, and differences in functions and values. 2. WDFW uses the following definition ofmitigation; avoib im acts is the hi hest mitigation priority. "Mitigation" means actions that shall be required or recommended to avoid or compensate for impacts to fish, wildlife, or habitat from the proposed project activity. The type(s) of mitigation required shall be considered and implemented, where feasible, in the following sequential order of preference: A. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. B. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. C. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. D. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. E. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. F. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures to achieve the identified goal. 3. WDFW requires mitigation when issuing environmental permits or documents. 4. WDFW re mmends mitigation on permits or documents issued by other a envies. 5. Com lete miti ation ensures no lass of habitat functions or values or opulations. Complete mitigation is achieved when mitigation elements in number 2 (A-F) ensures no loss of habitat functions or values, or fish and wildlife populations. Habitat loss and mitigation success shall be measured with the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) or other method acceptable to WDFW. 6. nn-site in -kind mitigation is the hi hest priority. WDFW priorities for mitigation location and type, in the following sequential order of preference, are: A. On -site, in -kind. B. Off -site, in -kind. C. On -site, out -of -kind. D. Off -site, out -of -kind. For off -site mitigation to be accepted, the project proponent must demonstrate to WDFW's satisfaction that greater habitat function and value can be achieved off -site than on -site. Combination of the four types may be accepted. "On -site" means on or adjacent to the project impact site. "In -kind" means the same species or habitat that was impacted. Out -of -kind mitigation is not acceptable for impacts to priority habitats and species, with two exceptions: (1) priority habitats and species that are at greater risk can be substituted for impacted priority habitats and species; and (2) for hydraulic projects, WDFW shall consider off -site and/or out -of -kind mitigation where equal or better biological functions and values are provided (see number 8 below). Priority habitats, and habitats of priority species, may be replaced at a level greater than the impacts of the project on those habitats and species. 7. For off -site fit mitigation, mitigation must occur in the same Water Resource Inventory Area WRIA as the impacts. Exceptions to the above must be approved by the director. For federal endangered or threatened species, mitigation must occur within the habitat supporting the same Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). 8. WDFW ma not limit mitigation to on -site in -kind mitigation when making decisions on hydraulic project approvals for infrastructure develo ment projects. The State Legislature has declared that it is the policy of the state to authorize innovative mitigation measures by requiring state regulatory agencies to consider mitigation proposals for infrastructure projects that are timed, designed, and located in a manner to provide equal or better biological functions and values compared to traditional on -site, in -kind mitigation proposals. For these types of projects, WDFW may not limit the scope of options in a mitigation plan to areas on or near the project site, or to habitat types of the same type as contained on a project site. When making a permit decision, WDFW shall consider whether the mitigation plan provides equal or better biological functions and values, compared to the existing conditions, for the target resources or species identified in the mitigation plan. The factors WDFW must consider in making this decision are identified in RCW 90.74.020 (3). Also see RCW 75.20.098 and Chapter 90.74 RCW. 9. When WDFW is issuingAHydraulic Pr 'ec�proval in relation to state or federal cleanup sites, and WDFW is the sale decisi n-maker WDJFW can only require miti ation if the sediment dredging r cawing actions do Hoff result i a cleaner aquatic environment and equal or better habitat functions and values. When other agencies are decision -makers, recommendations for mitigation may be made under other state or federal authority to protect habitat functions and values. 10. When WDFW is issuing a Hydraulic Project Approval and is the sole decision-rriaker, WDFW can re uesL but cannot require "habitat miti ation" for maintenance dyed in of existing navigable channels and berthing areas. The phrase, "habitat mitigation" is analogous to compensatory mitigation. See RCW 75.20.325. When other agencies are decision -makers, recommendations for mitigation may be made under other state or federal authority to protect habitat functions and values. 11. Preserving at -risk, high quali riority habitat may be considered as pan of an acce is le mitigation plan. When high quality areas of priority habitats or habitats of priority species are at risk, preservation of those habitats may be accepted as part of a mitigation plan, as long as there is no loss of habitat function. 12. Habitat replacement is preferred to hatcheries for fish mitigation. Commission policy directs WDFW to give priority to natural production rather than hatchery production, within habitat capabilities. 13. Mitigation game fish may be purchased from aquatic farmers. If WDFW requires, as part of a mitigation agreement, that resident hatchery game fish be stocked, RCW 77.18.020 requires that WDFW notify the project proponent that the fish may be purchased from a private aquatic farmer. WDFW shall specify fish health requirements, pounds or numbers, species, stock, and/or race of the fish to be provided. 14. Where authors exists, strive to maintain recreational and harvest_ opportunities. 15. ADproved habitat mitigation measures shall be based on best available science. 16. Miti zation plans shall be r uired for a project with significant impacts. Mitigation plans shall include the following:. . Baseline data ■ Estimate of impacts . Mitigation measures . Goals and objectives . Detailed implementation plan . Adequate replacement ratio . Performance standards to measure whether goals are being reached . Maps and drawings of proposal . As -built drawings . Operation and maintenance plans (including who will perform) . Monitoring and evaluation plans (including schedules) . Contingency plans, including corrective actions that will be taken if mitigation developments do not meet goals and objectives . Any agreements on performance bonds or other guarantees that the proponent will fulfill mitigation, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and contingency plan. 17. Proven mitigation techniques must be used. Experimental mitigation techniques are allowable only if advance mitigation is being performed and will be fully functional prior to the project impacts. 18. Mitt ation s all proceed alcn 'h'ith r .'ect construction. be e an integral part of a construction project anth shall have no mpl eed Mitigation measures ar ro ects with impacts before or during praject construction, except p j . Those projects require advance mitigation' Mitigation techniques —1s.rP-ment that is neater than. 19. De -la ea mite requires long time to ction,, Or that Mitigation that is implemented after project connstru itat value (over and above replacement reach replacement value, shall I a ad itla value) equal to the loss throughtime 20 VFW shall determine im acts and mitt ation. act, amount of mitigation VFW shall determine the project impact, significance of impact, nd amount of mitigation achieved, based on the best available information, g required, a lieant's plans and specifications - including the app projects with potentially significant impacts, this will be based on review of Far large prof WDFW- studies approved by 21. Cumulative im acts of ro e—cts shall be considered. measures taken to avoid Cumulative impacts of projects shall be considered and appropriate or minimize those impacts. 22. Project ro onent a s mitt ation co 5 Mitigation costs may include but are not limited to: A. Studies to determine impacts and mitigation needs. B. Alteration of project design- C. planning, design, and construction of mitigation features- D. operation and maintenance of mitigation measures for duration of project (including personnel). n measures and fish and wildlife response- E. Monitoring of mitigatio F. All WDFW costs including engineering analysis and input. �_� . �nonrat7CP. may be —_accejed. 23. Perxormasl u...... - - ation requirements, A performa nce bond, letter of credit, escrow account, will fulfill mi#ig financial guarantee may be accepted to ensure that the project proponentTans. The amount of the bon Operation and maintenance, us 0 percent.monitoring, and contingency p should cover the costs p 24. Mitt ation site shall be rotected for the Iife of the ro ect' The mitigation site shall be protected permanently, or at a minimum, for the life of the This rotection shall be through conservation easement, deed restriction, donation project. P binding method. to WDFW, or other legally 25 WDFW hall seek mitt ation for uA"I ated ro a de d existing projects. Criteria WDFW shall seek mitigation for unmitigated or undermrtlgate for prioritizing unmitigated projects are: A. Fish and wildlife losses from the project. B. Potential gains of fish and wildlife. C. Likelihood of achieving mitigation. D. Time required to achieve mitigation. E. Support from other agencies and tribes. F. Presence of priority habitats and species. G. Cost to WDFW. 26. Compliance monitoring shall be performed as funding allows. 27. Mitigation banking may be an acceptable form ofmiti a tion. The term "mitigation bank" as used here refers to a habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement project undertaken by a project proponent to act as a bank of credits to compensate for habitat impacts from future development projects. Credits and debits shall be based on area or a scientifically valid measure of habitat function and value acceptable to WDFW, such as the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). The use of credits from a mitigation bank as a form of compensation shall occur only after the standard sequencing of mitigation negotiations (avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, and then compensate). Habitat units may be traded or sold. 28. Terms of mitigation must be documented. A mitigation contract is necessary to document the terms of the mitigation. Mitigation contracts may take several forms: A. Mitigation agreement (must be approved by Office of Attorney General). B. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order. C. Conditions on an environmental permit. D. Statements in a final environmental impact statement. E. Conservation easement. F. Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) site certification. G. Landowner Landscape Plan. 29. Habitat and Lands ervices Program coordinates all mi#i ati n prqiects except olumbia and Snake River mainstem fish mitigation rojects that are coordinated by the intergovernmental Fisheries Program. The program that coordinates the mitigation projects is responsible for coordinating with all other programs and regions that have interest or involvement in the project. 30. Facilities shall be transferred to the appropriate promm for mans ement. When mitigation planning is completed, responsibility for any facilities (land, fish cultural facility, etc.) shall be transferred to the appropriate program and region. During the latter stages of planning, the managing program shall be phased into the process. 31. Managing ❑rograms shall follow the mitigation can ct. The program and region managing a mitigation facility or project shall follow the terms of the mitigation contract at all times. No deviations shall be made from the mitigation contract unless approved by the program that negotiated the contract. Janet Shull From: Riedy, Michael <Michael.Riedy@fema.dhs.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:44 PM To: Janet Shull Cc: Graves, John Subject: RE: ESA Guidance Website Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Ms. Shull, We have received your public hearing notice for the Palisades Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Replacement project in the City of Federal Way. I have also received your Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and at first review it looks like it is written to the State SEPA requirements and not the requirements of the NFIP and of the ESA Biological Opinion. Please review our Habitat Assessment Guide and demonstrate how the project meets the requirements of the Biological Opinion. The HA Guide can be found by using the link in the email below. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you, Michael J. Riedy, CEM, CFM Natural Hazards Program Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X, Federal Regional Center 130 228" Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 425-487-4654 Michael.Riedy@fcma.dhs.gov From: Riedy, Michael Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:57 AM To:'janet.shull@cityoffederalway.com' Cc: Graves, John Subject: ESA Guidance Website Hello Ms. Shull, It was good talking with you just now over the telephone about the requirements under the Puget Sound Biological Opinion regarding bulkhead permits. As you requested the following website has all of the documentation and guides to assist you in completing the requirements of the Biological Opinion: htt :Ilwww.#ema, ov/national-flood-insurance- ro ram-endangered-s ecies-act Thank you, Michael J. Riedy, CEM, CFM Natural Hazards Program Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X, Federal Regional Center 130 228t' Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 425-487-4654 Michael. Ri e dyQfema. dhs. go v FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ELEVATION CERTIFICATE AND INSTRUCTIONS 2012 EDITION National Flood Insurance Program ELEVATION CERTIFICATE Paperwork Reduction Act Notice Public reporting burden for this data collection is estimated to average 3.75 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and submitting this form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number is displayed on this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to: Information Collections Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3005, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660-0008). NOTE: Do not send your completed form to this address. Privacy Act Statement Authority: Title 44 CFR § 61.7 and 61.8. Principal Purpose(s): This information is being collected for the primary purpose of estimating the risk premium rates necessary to provide flood insurance for new or substantially improved structures in designated Special Rood Hazard Areas. Routine Use(s): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS/FEMA-003 — National Flood Insurance Program Files System or Records Notice 73 Fed. Reg. 77747 (December 19, 2008); DHS/FEMA/NFIP/ LOMA-1— National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) System of Records Notice 71 Fed. Reg. 7990 (February 15, 2006); and upon written request, written consent, by agreement, or as required by law. Disclosure: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may result in the inability to obtain flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program or the applicant may be subject to higher premium rates for flood insurance. Information will only be released as permitted by law. Purpose of the Elevation Certificate The Elevation Certificate is an important administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It is to be used to provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F). The Elevation Certificate is required in order to properly rate Post -FIRM buildings, which are buildings constructed after publication of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), located in flood insurance Zones Al—A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, V1—V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1—A30, AR/AH, and AR/AO. The Elevation Certificate is not required for Pre -FIRM buildings unless the building is being rated under the optional Post -FIRM flood insurance rules. As part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in a community, the NFIP requires the community to adopt floodplain management regulations that specify minimum requirements for reducing flood losses. One such requirement is for the community to obtain the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved buildings, and maintain a record of such information. The Elevation Certificate provides a way for a community to document compliance with the community's floodplain management ordinance. Use of this certificate does not provide a waiver of the flood insurance purchase requirement. Only a LOMA or LOMR-F from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can amend the FIRM and remove the Federal mandate for a lending institution to require the purchase of flood insurance. However, the lending institution has the option of requiring flood insurance even if a LOMA/LOMR-F has been issued by FEMA. The Elevation Certificate may be used to support a LOMA or LOMR-F request. Lowest floor and lowest adjacent grade elevations certified by a surveyor or engineer will be required if the certificate is used to support a LOMA or LOMR-F request. A LOMA or LOMR-F request must be submitted with either a completed FEMA MT-EZ or MT-1 package, whichever is appropriate. This certificate is used only to certify building elevations. A separate certificate is required for floodproofing. Under the NFIP non- residential buildings can be floodproofed up to or above the' Base Flood Elevation (BFE). A floodproofed building is a building that has been designed and constructed to be watertight (substantially impermeable to floodwaters) below the BFE. floodproofing of residential buildings is not permitted under the NFIP unless FEMA has granted the community an exception for residential floodproofed basements. The community must adopt standards for design and construction of floodproofed basements before FEMA will grant a basement exception. For both floodproofed non-residential buildings and residential floodproofed basements in communities that have been granted an exception by FEMA, a floodproofing certificate is required. Additional guidance can be found in FEMA Publication 467-1, floodplain Management Bulletin: Elevation Certificate, available on FEMA's website at httg://www.fema.gov If rar viewRe or-do?id=1727. FEMA Form 0864).33 (Revised 7/12) F-053 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ELEVATION CERTIFICATE OMB No. 1660-0008 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Expiration Date: July 31, 2015 National Flood Insurance Program IMPORTANT: Follow the instructions on pages 1-9_ SECTION A - PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Al. Building Owner's Name Policy Number: A2. Building Street Address (including Apt., Unit, Suite, and/or Bldg. No.) or P.O. Route and Box No. Company NAIL Number: City State ZIP Code A3. Property Description (Lot and Block Numbers, Tax Parcel Number, Legal Description, etc.) A4. Building Use (e.g., Residential, Non -Residential, Addition, Accessory, etc.) A5. Latitude/Longitude: Lat. Long. Horizontal Datum: ❑ NAD 1927 ❑ NAD 1983 A6. Attach at least 2 photographs of the building if the Certificate is being used to obtain flood insurance. A7. Building Diagram Number A8. For a building with a crawlspace or enclosure(s): A9. For a building with an attached garage: a) Square footage of crawlspace or enclosure(s) sq ft a) Square footage of attached garage sq ft b) Number of permanent flood openings in the crawlspace b) Number of permanent flood openings in the attached garage or enclosure(s) within 1.0 foot above adjacent grade within 1.0 foot above adjacent grade c) Total net area of flood openings in A8.b sq in c) Total net area of flood openings in A9.1b sq in d) Engineered flood openings? ❑ Yes ❑ No d) Engineered flood openings? ❑ Yes ❑ No SECTION B - FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) INFORMATION B1. NFIP Community Name & Community Number B2. County Name B3. State B4. Map/Panel Number B5. Suffix B6. FIRM Index Date B7. FIRM Panel Effective/ B8. Flood Zone(s) 69. Base Flood Elevation(s) (Zone Revised Date I I AO, use base flood depth) 1310.Indicate the source of the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) data or base flood depth entered in Item B9: ❑ FIS Profile ❑ FIRM ❑ Community Determined ❑ Other/Source: B11.Indicate elevation datum used for BFE in Item B9: ❑ NGVD 1929 ❑ NAVD 1988 ❑ Other/Source: B12.Is the building located in a Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) area or Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Designation Date: / / ❑ CBRS ❑ OPA SECTION C - BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY REQUIRED) Cl. Building elevations are based on: ❑ Construction Drawings* ❑ Building Under Construction* ❑ Finished Construction *A new Elevation Certificate will be required when construction of the building is complete. C2. Elevations - Zones Al-A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, V1-V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO. Complete Items C2.a-h below according to the building diagram specified in Item A7. In Puerto Rico only, enter meters. Benchmark Utilized: Vertical Datum: Indicate elevation datum used for the elevations in items a) through h) below. ❑ NGVD 1929 ❑ NAVD 1988 ❑ Other/Source: Datum used for building elevations must be the same as that used for the BFE. Check the measurement used a) Top of bottom floor (including basement, crawlspace, or enclosure floor) b) Top of the next higher floor c) Bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member (V Zones only) d) Attached garage (top of slab) e) Lowest elevation of machinery or equipment servicing the building (Describe type of equipment and location in Comments) f) Lowest adjacent (finished) grade next to building (LAG) g) Highest adjacent (finished) grade next to building (HAG) h) Lowest adjacent grade at lowest elevation of deck or stairs, including structural support ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ feet ❑ meters SECTION D - SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION This certification is to be signed and sealed by a land surveyor, engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. I certify that the information on this Certificate represents my best efforts to interpret the data available. 1 understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001. ❑ Check here if comments are provided on back of form. Were latitude and longitude in Section A provided by a ❑ Check here if attachments. licensed land surveyor? ❑ Yes ❑ No Certifier's Name License Number Title Company Name Address City State ZIP Code Signature Date Telephone PLACE SEAL HERE FEMA Form 086-0-33 (Revised 7/12) See reverse side for continuation. Replaces all previous editions. ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, page 2 IMPORTANT: In these spaces, copy the corresponding information from Section A. FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Building Street Address (including Apt., Unit, Suite, and/or Bldg. No.) or P.O. Route and Box No. Policy Number: City State _ ZIP Code Company NAIC Number: SECTION D — SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION (CONTINUED) Copy both sides of this Elevation Certificate for (1) community official, (2) insurance agent/company, and (3) building owner. Comments Signature Date SECTION E — BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY NOT REQUIRED) FOR ZONE AO AND ZONE A (WITHOUT BFE) For Zones AO and A (without BFE), complete Items El—E5. If the Certificate is intended to support a LOMA or LOMR-F request, complete Sections A, B,and C. For Items E1—E4, use natural grade, if available. Check the measurement used. In Puerto Rico only, enter meters. E1. Provide elevation information for the following and check the appropriate boxes to show whether the elevation is above or below the highest adjacent grade (HAG) and the lowest adjacent grade (LAG). a) Top of bottom floor (including basement, crawlspace, or enclosure) is ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ above or ❑ below the HAG. b) Top of bottom floor (including basement, crawlspace, or enclosure) is ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ above or ❑ below the LAG. E2. For Building Diagrams 6-9 with permanent flood openings provided in Section A Items 8 and/or 9 (see pages 8-9 of Instructions), the next higher floor (elevation C2.b in the diagrams) of the building is [:]feet ❑ meters ❑ above or ❑ below the HAG. E3. Attached garage (top of slab) is ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ above or ❑ below the HAG. E4. Top of platform of machinery and/or equipment servicing the building is ❑ feet ❑ meters ❑ above or ❑ below the HAG. E5. Zone AO only: If no flood depth number is available, is the top of the bottom floor elevated in accordance with the community's floodplain management ordinance? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown. The local official must certify this information in Section G. SECTION F — PROPERTY OWNER (OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE) CERTIFICATION The property owner or owner's authorized representative who completes Sections A, B, and E for Zone A (without a FEMA-issued or community -issued BFE) or Zone AO must sign here. The statements in Sections A, B, and E are correct to the best of my knowledge. Property Owner or Owner's Authorized Representative's Name Address City State ZIP Code Signature Date Telephone Comments ❑ Check here if attachments. SECTION G — COMMUNITY INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) The local official who is authorized by law or ordinance to administer the community's floodplain management ordinance can complete Sections A, B, C (or E), and G of this Elevation Certificate. Complete the applicable item(s) and sign below. Check the measurement used in Items G8—G10. In Puerto Rico only, enter meters. G1. ❑ The information in Section C was taken from other documentation that has been signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or architect who is authorized by law to certify elevation information. (Indicate the source and date of the elevation data in the Comments area below.) G2. ❑ A community official completed Section E for a building located in Zone A (without a FEMA-issued or community -issued BFE) or Zone AO. G3. ❑ The following information (Items G4—G10) is provided for community floodplain management purposes. G4. Permit Number G5. Date Permit Issued G6. Date Certificate Of Compliance/Occupancy Issued G7. This permit has been issued for: ❑ New Construction ❑ Substantial Improvement G8. Elevation of as -built lowest floor (including basement) of the building: ❑ feet ❑ meters Datum G9. BFE or (in Zone AO) depth of flooding at the building site: ]--]feet ❑ meters Datum G10. Community's design flood elevation: ❑ feet ❑ meters Datum Local Official's Name Title Community Name Telephone Signature Date Comments ❑ Check here if attachments. FEMA Form 086-0-33 (Revised 7/12) Replaces all previous editions. ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, page 3 BUILDING PHOTOGRAPHS See Instructions for Item A6. IMPORTANT: In these spaces, copy the corresponding information from Section A. FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Building Street Address (including Apt., Unit, Suite, and/or Bldg. No.) or RO. Route and Box No. { Policy Number: City State ZIP Code Company NAIC Number. If using the Elevation Certificate to obtain NFIP flood insurance, affix at least 2 building photographs below according to the instructions for Item A6. Identify all photographs with date taken; "Front View" and "Rear View"; and, if required, "Right Side View" and "Left Side View." When applicable, photographs must show the foundation with representative examples of the flood openings or vents, as indicated in Section A8. If submitting more photographs than will fit on this page, use the Continuation Page. FEMA Form 086-0.33 (Revised 7/12) Replaces all previous editions. ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, page 4 BUILDING PHOTOGRAPHS Continuation Page IMPORTANT: In these spaces, copy the corresponding information from Section A. FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Building Street Address (including Apt., Unit, Suite, and/or Bldg. No.) or PO. Route and Box No. I Policy Number: f City State ZIP Code Company If submitting more photographs than will fit on the preceding page, affix the additional photographs below. Identify all photographs with: date taken; "Front View" and "Rear View"; and, if required, "Right Side View" and "Left Side View." When applicable, photographs must show the foundation with representative examples of the flood openings or vents, as indicated in Section A8. FEMA Form 086-0-33 (Revised 7/12) Replaces all previous editions. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Instructions for Completing OMB No. 1660-0008 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Expiration Date: July 31, 2015 National Flood Insurance Program the Elevation Certificate The Elevation Certificate is to be completed by a land surveyor, engineer, or architect who is authorized by law to certify elevation information when elevation information is required for Zones Al A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, VI--V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1 A30, AR/AH, or AR/AO. Community officials who are authorized by law or ordinance to provide floodplain management information may also complete this form. For Zones AO and A (without BFE), a community official, a property owner, or an owner's representative may provide information on this certificate, unless the elevations are intended for use in supporting a request for a LOMA or LOMR-F. Certified elevations must be included if the purpose of completing the Elevation Certificate is to obtain a LOMA or LOMR-F. The property owner, the owner's representative, or local official who is authorized by law to administer the community floodplain ordinance can complete Section A and Section B. The partially completed form can then be given to the land surveyor, engineer, or architect to complete Section C. The land surveyor, engineer, or architect should verify the information provided by the property owner or owner's representative to ensure that this certificate is complete. In Puerto Rico only, elevations for building information and flood hazard information may be entered in meters SECTION A — PROPERTY INFORMATION Items Al—A4. This section identifies the building, its location, and its owner. Enter the name(s) of the building owner(s), the building's complete street address, and the lot and block numbers. If the building's address is different from the owner's address, enter the address of the building being certified. If the address is a rural route or a Post Office box number, enter the lot and block numbers, the tax parcel number, the legal description, or an abbreviated location description based on distance and direction from a fixed point of reference. For the purposes of this certificate, "building" means both a building and a manufactured (mobile) home. A map may be attached to this certificate to show the location of the building on the property. A tax map, FIRM, or detailed community map is appropriate. If no map is available, provide a sketch of the property location, and the location of the building on the property. Include appropriate landmarks such as nearby roads, intersections, and bodies of water. For building use, indicate whether the building is residential, non-residential, an addition to an existing residential or non-residential building, an accessory building (e.g., garage), or other type of structure. Use the Comments area of the appropriate section if needed, or attach additional comments. Item A5. Provide latitude and longitude coordinates for the center of the front of the building. Use either decimal degrees (e.g., 39.5043°,-110.7585°) or degrees, minutes, seconds (e.g., 39' 30' 15.5", -1100 45' 30.7") format. If decimal degrees are used, provide coordinates to at least 4 decimal places or better. When using degrees, minutes, seconds, provide seconds to at least 1 decimal place or better. The latitude and longitude coordinates must be accurate within 66 feet. When the latitude and longitude are provided by a surveyor, check the "Yes' box in Section D and indicate the method used to determine the latitude and longitude in the Comments area of Section D. If [he Elevation Certificate is being certified by other than a licensed surveyor, engineer, or architect, this information is not required. Provide the type of datum used to obtain the latitude and longitude. FEMA prefers the use of NAD 1983. Item A6. If the Elevation Certificate is being used to obtain flood insurance through the NFIP, the certifier must provide at least 2 photographs showing the front and rear of the building taken within 90 days from the date of certification. The photographs must be taken with views confirming the building description and diagram number provided in Section A. To the extent possible, these photographs should show the entire building including foundation. If the building has split-level or multi -level areas, provide at least 2 additional photographs showing side views of the building. in addition, when applicable, provide a photograph of the foundation showing a representative example of the flood openings or vents. All photographs must be in color and measure at least 3" x 3". Digital photographs are acceptable. Item A7. Select the diagram on pages 7-9 that best represents the building. Then enter the diagram number and use the diagram to identify and determine the appropriate elevations requested in Items C2.a—h. If you are unsure of the correct diagram, select the diagram that most closely resembles the building being certified. Item A8.a Provide the square footage of the crawlspace or enclosure(s) below the lowest elevated floor of an elevated building with or without permanent flood openings. Take the measurement from the outside of the crawlspace or enclosure(s). Examples of elevated buildings constructed with crawlspace and enclosure(s) are shown in Diagrams 6-9 on pages 8-9. Diagram 2, 4, or 9 should be used for a building constructed with a crawlspace floor that is below the exterior grade on all sides. NAP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 1 Items AB.b—d Enter in Item A8_b the number of permanent flood openings in the crawlspace or enclosure(s) that are no higher than 1.0 foot above the higher of the exterior or interior grade or floor immediately below the opening. (A permanent flood opening is a flood vent or other opening that allows the free p assabe of water automatically in boa: directions without human intervention.) If the interior grade elevation is used, note this in the Comments area of Section D. Estimate the total net area of all such permanent flood openings in square inches, excluding any bars, louvers, or other covers of the permanent flood openings, and enter the total in Item A8_c. If the net area cannot be reasonably estimated, provide the size of the flood openings without consideration of any covers and indicate in the Comments area the type of cover that exists in the flood openings. Indicate in Item A8.d whether the flood openings are engineered. If applicable, attach a copy of the Individual Engineered Flood Openings Certification or an Evaluation Report issued by the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES), if you have it. If the crawlspace or enclosure(s) have no permanent flood openings, or if the openings are not within 1.0 foot above adjacent grade, enter "0" (zero) in Items A8.b—c. Item A9.a Provide the square footage of the attached garage with or without permanent flood openings. Take the measurement from the outside of the garage. Items A9.b—d Enter in Item A9.b the number of permanent flood openings in the attached garage that are no higher than 1.0 foot above the higher of the exterior or interior grade or floor immediately below the opening. (A permanent flood opening is a flood vent or other opening that allows the free passage of water automatically in both directions without human intervention) If the interior grade elevation is used, note this in the Comments area of Section D. This includes any openings that are in the garage door that are no higher than 1.0 foot above the adjacent grade. Estimate the total net area of all such permanent flood openings in square inches and enter the total in Item A9.c. If the net area cannot be reasonably estimated, provide the size of the flood openings without consideration of any covers and indicate in the Comments area the type of cover that exists in the flood openings. Indicate in Item AM whether the flood openings are engineered. If applicable, attach a copy of the Individual Engineered Flood Openings Certification or an Evaluation Report issued by the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES), if you have it. If the garage has no permanent flood openings, or if the openings are not within 1.0 foot above adjacent grade, enter "0" (zero) in Items A9.b—c. SECTION B — FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) INFORMATION Complete the Elevation Certificate on the basis of the FIRM in effect at the time of the certification The information for Section B is obtained by reviewing the FIRM panel that includes the building's location. Information about the current FIRM is available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by calling 1-800-358-9616. If a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR-F) has been issued by FEMA, please provide the letter date and case number in the Comments area of Section D or Section G, as appropriate. For a building in an area that has been annexed by one community but is shown on another community's FIRM, enter the community name and 6-digit number of the annexing community in Item Bl, the name of the county or new county, if necessary, in Item B2, and the FIRM index date for the annexing community in Item B6. Enter information from the actual FIRM panel that shows the building location, even if it is the FIRM for the previous jurisdiction, in Items B4, B5, B7, B8, and B9. If the map in effect at the time of the building's construction was other than the current FIRM, and you have the past map information pertaining to the building, provide the information in the Comments area of Section D. Item Bl. NFIP Community Name & Community Number. Enter the complete name of the community in which the building is located and the associated 6-digit community number. For a newly incorporated community, use the name and 6-digit number of the new community. Under the NFIP, a "community" is any State or area or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe or authorized native organization, that has authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations for the areas within its jurisdiction. To determine the current community number, see the NFIP Community Status Book, available on FEMA's web site at http_//www.femafgoy/fema/csb.shLm, or call 1-800-358-9616. Item B2. County Name. Enter the name of the county or counties in which the community is located. For an unincorporated area of a county, enter "unincorporated area" For an independent city, enter "independent city." Item B3. State. Enter the 2-letter state abbreviation (for example, VA, TX, CA). Items B4—BS. Map/Panel Number and Suffix. Enter the 10-character "Map Number" or "Community Panel Number" shown on the FIRM where the building or manufactured (mobile) home is located. For maps in a county -wide format, the sixth character of the "Map Number" is the letter "C" followed by a 4-digit map number. For maps not in a county -wide format, enter the "Community Panel Number" shown on the FIRM. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 2 Item B6. FIRM Index Date. Enter the effective date or the map revised date shown on the FIRM Index. Item B7. FIRM Panel Effective/Revised Date. Enter the map effective date or the map revised date,shown on the FIRM panel. This will be the latest of all dates shown on the map. The current FIRM panel effective date can be determined by calling 1-800-358-9616. Item B8. Flood Zone(s). Enter the flood zone, or flood zones, in which the building is located. All flood zones containing the letter "A" or ' V" are considered Special Flood Hazard Areas. The flood zones are A, AE, Al—A30, V, VE, Vl V30, AH, AO, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/Al—A30, AR/AH, and AR/AO. Each flood zone is defined in the legend of the FIRM panel on which it appears. Item B9. Base Flood Elevation(s). Using the appropriate Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Profile, Floodway Data Table, or FIRM panel, locate the property and enter the BFE (or base flood depth) of the building site. If the building is located in more than 1 flood zone in Item B8, list all appropriate BFEs in Item B9. BFEs are shown on a FIRM or FIS Profile for Zones Al A30, AE, AH, Vl—V30, VE, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/Al—A30, AR/AH, and AR/AO; flood depth numbers are shown for Zone AO. Use the AR BFE if the building is located in any of Zones AR/A, AR/AE, AR/Al A30, AR/AH, or AR/AO. In A or V zones where BFEs are not provided on the FIRM, BFEs may be available from another source. For example, the community may have established BFEs or obtained BFE data from other sources for the building site. For subdivisions and other developments of more than 50 lots or 5 acres, establishment of BFEs is required by the community's floodplain management ordinance. If a BFE is obtained from another source, enter the BFE in Item B9. In an A Zone where BFEs are not available, complete Section E and enter N/A for Section B, Item B9. Enter the BFE to the nearest tenth of a foot (nearest tenth of a meter, in Puerto Rico). Item B10. Indicate the source of the BFE that you entered in Item B9. If the BFE is from a source other than FIS Profile, FIRM, or community, describe the source of the BFE. Item Bll. Indicate the elevation datum to which the elevations on the applicable FIRM are referenced as shown on the map legend. The vertical datum is shown in the Map Legend and/or the Notes to Users on the FIRM. Item B12. Indicate whether the building is located in a Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) area or Otherwise Protected Area (OPA). (OPAs are portions of coastal barriers that are owned by Federal, State, or local governments or by certain non- profit organizations and used primarily for natural resources protection) Federal flood insurance is prohibited in designated CBRS areas or OPAs for buildings or manufactured (mobile) homes built or substantially improved after the date of the CBRS or OPA designation. For the first CBRS designations, that date is October 1; 1983. Information about CBRS areas and OPAs may be obtained on the FEMA web site at htt ://www.fema. ov/business/nfi /cbrs/cbrs.shtm. SECTION C — BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY REQUIRED) Complete Section C if the building is located in any of Zones Al A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, Vl V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/Al A30, AR/AH, or AR/AO, or if this certificate is being used to support a request for a LOMA or LOMR-F. If the building is located in Zone AO or Zone A (without BFE), complete Section E instead. To ensure that all required elevations are obtained, it may be necessary to enter the building (for instance, if the building has a basement or sunken living room, split-level construction, or machinery and equipment). Surveyors may not be able to gain access to some crawlspaces to shoot the elevation of the crawlspace floor. If access to the crawlspace is limited or cannot be gained, follow one of these procedures. • Use a yardstick or tape measure to measure the height from the floor of the crawlspace to the "next higher floor;' and then subtract the crawlspace height from the elevation of the "next higher floor." If there is no access to the crawlspace, use the exterior grade next to the structure to measure the height of the crawlspace to the "next higher floor." • Contact the local floodplain administrator of the community in which the building is located. The community may have documentation of the elevation of the crawlspace floor as part of the permit issued for the building. • If the property owner has documentation or knows the height of the crawlspace floor to the next higher floor, try to verify this by looking inside the crawlspace through any openings or vents. In all 3 cases, provide the elevation in the Comments area of Section D on the back of the form and a brief description of how the elevation was obtained. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 3 Item C1. Indicate whether the elevations to be entered in this section are based on construction drawings, a building under construction, or finished construction. For either of the first 2 choices, a post -construction Elevation Certificate will be required when construction is complete. if the building is under construction, include only those elevations that car, be surveyed in Items C2.a—h. Use the Comments area of Section D to provide elevations obtained from the construction plans or drawings. Select "Finished Construction" only when all machinery and/or equipment such as furnaces, hot water heaters, heat pumps, air conditioners, and elevators and their associated equipment have been installed and the grading around the building is completed. Item C2. A field survey is required for Items C2.a—h. Most control networks will assign a unique identifier for each benchmark. For example, the National Geodetic Survey uses the Permanent Identifier (PID). For the benchmark utilized, provide the PID or other unique identifier assigned by the maintainer of the benchmark. For GPS survey, indicate the benchmark used for the base station, the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) sites used for an On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS) solution (also attach the OPUS report), or the name of the Real Time Network used. Also provide the vertical datum for the benchmark elevation. All elevations for the certificate, including the elevations for Items C2.a—h, must use the same datum on which the BFE is based. Show the conversion from the field survey datum used if it differs from the datum used for the BFE entered in Item B9 and indicate the conversion software used. Show the datum conversion, if applicable, in the Comments area of Section D. For property experiencing ground subsidence, the most recent reference mark elevations must be used for determining building elevations. However, when subsidence is involved, the BFE should not be adjusted. Enter elevations in Items C2.a—h to the nearest tenth of a foot (nearest tenth of a meter, in Puerto Rico). Items C2.a—d Enter the building elevations (excluding the attached garage) indicated by the selected building diagram (Item A7) in Items C2.a—c. If there is an attached garage, enter the elevation for top of attached garage slab in Item C2.d. (Because elevation for top of attached garage slab is self-explanatory, attached garages are not illustrated in the diagrams) If the building is located in a V zone on the FIRM, complete Item C2.c. If the flood zone cannot be determined, enter elevations for all of Items C2.a—h. For buildings in A zones, elevations a, b, d, and e should be measured at the top of the floor. For buildings in V zones, elevation c must be measured at the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the floor (see drawing below). For buildings BUILDING ON BUILDING WITH BUILDING ON PILES, SLAB BASEMENT PIERS, OR COLUMNS C2.a AZONES VZONES C2.a AZONES VZONES �: s 1h. A ZONES;ink _ p"• "7"oX C2.a C2.c BASE FLOOD ELEVATION C2.c - BASE FLOOD, " ADJACENT ELEVATION GRADE elevated on a crawlspace, Diagrams 8 and 9, enter the elevation of the top of the crawlspace floor in Item C2.a, whether or not the crawlspace has permanent flood openings (flood vents). If any item does not apply to the building, enter `N/A" for not applicable. Item C2.e Enter the lowest platform elevation of at least 1 of the following machinery and equipment items: elevators and their associated equipment, furnaces, hot water heaters, heat pumps, and air conditioners in an attached garage or enclosure or on an open utility platform that provides utility services for the building. Note that elevations for these specific machinery and equipment items are required in order to rate the building for flood insurance. Local floodplain management officials are required to ensure that all machinery and equipment servicing the building are protected from flooding. Thus, local officials may require that elevation information for all machinery and equipment, including ductwork, be documented on the Elevation Certificate. If the machinery and/or equipment is mounted to a wall, pile, etc., enter the platform elevation of the machinery and/ NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 4 or equipment. Indicate machinery/equipment type and its general location, e.g., on floor inside garage or on platform affixed to exterior wall, in the Comments area of Section D or Section G, as appropriate. If this item does not apply to the building, enter "N/A" for not applicable. Items C2.f—g Enter the elevation of the ground, sidewalk, or patio slab immediately next to the building. For Zone AO, use the natural grade elevation, if available. This measurement must be to the nearest tenth of a foot (nearest tenth of a meter, in Puerto Rico) if this certificate is being used to support a request for a LOMA or LOMR-F. Item C2.h Enter the lowest grade elevation at the deck support or stairs. For Zone AO, use the natural grade elevation, if available. This measurement must be to the nearest tenth of a foot (nearest tenth of a meter, in Puerto Rico) if this certificate is being used to support a request for a LOMA or LOMR-F. SECTION D — SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION Complete as indicated. This section of the Elevation Certificate may be signed by only a land surveyor, engineer, or architect who is authorized by law to certify elevation information. Place your license number, your seal (as allowed by the State licensing board), your signature, and the date in the box in Section D. You are certifying that the information on this certificate represents your best efforts to interpret the data available and that you understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001. Use the Comments area of Section D, on the back of the certificate, to provide datum, elevation, openings, or other relevant information not specified on the front. SECTION E — BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY NOT REQUIRED) FOR ZONE AO AND ZONE A (WITHOUT BFE) Complete Section E if the building is located in Zone AO or Zone A (without BFE). Otherwise, complete Section C instead. Explain in the Section F Comments area if the measurement provided under Items El—E4 is based on the "natural grade." Items EI.a and b Enter in Item E1.a the height to the nearest tenth of a foot (tenth of a meter in Puerto Rico) of the top of the bottom floor (as indicated in the applicable diagram) above or below the highest adjacent grade (HAG). Enter in Item El.b the height to the nearest tenth of a foot (tenth of a meter in Puerto Rico) of the top of the bottom floor (as indicated in the applicable diagram) above or below the lowest adjacent grade (LAG). For buildings in Zone AO, the community's floodplain management ordinance requires the lowest floor of the building be elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number on the FIRM. Buildings in Zone A (without BFE) may qualify for a lower insurance rate if an engineered BFE is developed at the site. Item E2. For Building Diagrams 6-9 with permanent flood openings (see pages 8-9), enter the height to the nearest tenth of a foot (tenth of a meter in Puerto Rico) of the next higher floor or elevated floor (as indicated in the applicable diagram) above or below the highest adjacent grade (HAG). Item E3. Enter the height to the nearest tenth of a foot (tenth of a meter in Puerto Rico), in relation to the highest adjacent grade next to the building, for the top of attached garage slab. (Because elevation for top of attached garage slab is self-explanatory, attached garages are not illustrated in the diagrams) If this item does not apply to the building, enter "N/A" for not applicable. Item E4. Enter the height to the nearest tenth of a foot (tenth of a meter in Puerto Rico), in relation to the highest adjacent grade next to the building, of the platform elevation that supports the machinery and/or equipment servicing the building. Indicate machinery/equipment type in the Comments area of Section F. If this item does not apply to the building, enter "N/A" for not applicable. Item ES. For those communities where this base flood depth is not available, the community will need to determine whether the top of the bottom floor is elevated in accordance with the community's floodplain management ordinance. SECTION F— PROPERTY OWNER (OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE) CERTIFICATION Complete as indicated. This section is provided for certification of measurements taken by a property owner or property owner's representative when responding to Sections A, B, and E. The address entered in this section must be the actual mailing address of the property owner or property owner's representative who provided the information on the certificate. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 5 SECTION G — COMMUNITY INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) Complete as indicated. The community official who is authorized by law or ordinance to administer the community's floodplain management ordinance can complete Sections A, B, C (or E), and G of this Elevation Certificate. Section C may be filled in by the local official as provided in the instructions below for Item Gi. If the authorized community official completes Sections C, E, or G, complete the appropriate item(s) and sign this section. Check Item G1 if Section C is completed with elevation data from other documentation, including elevations obtained from the Community Rating System Elevation Software, that has been signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or architect who is authorized by law to certify elevation information. Indicate the source of the elevation data and the date obtained in the Comments area of Section G. If you are both a community official and a licensed land surveyor, engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information, and you performed the actual survey for a building in Zones Al A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE), VE, VI--V30, V (with BFE), AR, AR/A, AR/Al A30, AR/AE, AR/AH, or AR/AO, you must also complete Section D. Check Item G2 if information is entered in Section E by the community for a building in Zone A (without a FEMA-issued or community -issued BFE) or Zone AO. Check Item G3 if the information in Items G4—G10 has been completed for community floodplain management purposes to document the as -built lowest floor elevation of the building. Section C of the Elevation Certificate records the elevation of various building components but does not determine the lowest floor of the building or whether the building, as constructed, complies with the community's floodplain management ordinance. This must be done by the community. Items G4—G10 provide a way to document these determinations. Item G4. Permit Number. Enter the permit number or other identifier to key the Elevation Certificate to the permit issued for the building. Item G5. Date Permit Issued. Enter the date the permit was issued for the building. Item G6. Date Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy Issued. Enter the date that the Certificate of Compliance or Occupancy or similar written official documentation of as -built lowest floor elevation was issued by the community as evidence that all work authorized by the floodplain development permit has been completed in accordance with the community's floodplain management laws or ordinances. Item G7. New Construction or Substantial Improvement. Check the applicable box. "Substantial Improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the building before the start of construction of the improvement. The term includes buildings that have incurred substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed. Item G8. As -built lowest floor elevation. Enter the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) when the construction of the building is completed and a final inspection has been made to confirm that the building is built in accordance with the permit, the approved plans, and the community's floodplain management laws or ordinances. Indicate the elevation datum used. Item G9. BFE. Using the appropriate FIRM panel, FIS Profile, or other data source, locate the property and enter the BFE (or base flood depth) of the building site. Indicate the elevation datum used. Item G10. Community's design flood elevation. Enter the elevation (including freeboard above the BFE) to which the community requires the lowest floor to be elevated. Indicate the elevation datum used. Enter your name, title, and telephone number, and the name of the community. Sign and enter the date in the appropriate blanks. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 6 Building Diagrams The following diagrams illustrate various types of buildings_ Compare the features of the building being certified with the features shown in the diagrams and select the diagram most applicable. Enter the diagram number in Item A7, the square footage of crawlspace or enclosure(s) and the area of flood openings in square inches in Items A8.a-c, the square footage of attached garage and the area of flood openings in square inches in Items A9.a-c, and the elevations in Items C2.a-h. In A zones, the floor elevation is taken at the top finished surface of the floor indicated; in V zones, the floor elevation is taken at the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member (see drawing in instructions for Section C). DIAGRAM 1A All slab -on -grade single- and multiple -floor buildings (other than split-level) and high-rise buildings, either detached or row type (e.g., townhouses); with or without attached garage. Distinguishing Feature -The bottom floor is at or above ground level (grade) on at least 1 side.* C2.b t NEXT HIGHER C2.a FLOOR i GRADE BOTTOM FLOOR existing grade) DIAGRAM 16 All raised -slab -on -grade or slab -on -stem -wall -with -fill single- and multiple -floor buildings (other than split- level), either detached or row type (e.g., townhouses); with or without attached garage. Distinguishing Feature - The bottom floor is at or above ground level (grade) on at least 1 side.* C2.b C2.a r NEXT HIGHER r t FLOOR BOTTOM FLOOR GRADE {determined by C2.f-h axisting grade nukr.Ram 9 All single- and multiple -floor buildings with basement (other than split-level) and high-rise buildings with basement, either detached or row type (e.g., townhouses); with or without attached garage. Distinguishing Feature - The bottom floor (basement or underground garage) is below ground level (grade) on all sides.* C2.a C2.b NEXT HIGHER FLOOR GRADE BOTTOM FLOOR BASEMENT existing,gai*' * A floor that is below ground level (grade) on all sides is considered a basement even if the floor is used for living purposes, or as an office, garage, workshop, etc. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions - Page 7 DIAGRAM 3 All split-level buildings that are slab -on -grade, either detached or row type (e.g., townhouses); with or without attached garage. Distinguishing Feature —The bottom floor (excluding garage) is at or above ground level (grade) on at least 1 side.* r C2.a ; E r C2.b r HIGHER r FLOORS NEXT HIGHER GRADE BOTTOM FLOOR LOOR } '� ...4r `4 t f�, k.�^r t s iA e)(!!�`Yt+= i aL°r' C2.f—h existing grade). : i'"ri. :.... _.. . DIAGRAM 5 All buildings elevated on piers, posts, piles, columns, or parallel shear walls. No obstructions below the elevated floor. Distinguishing Feature — For all zones, the area below the elevated floor is open, with no obstruction to flow of floodwaters (open lattice work and/or insect screening is permissible). r NEXT HIGHER r FLOOR /e C2.a ELEVATED FLOOR GRADE C2. b C2.f—h • (dsrer'mirted'tiy existing grade) C2.0 (For V zones only) DIAGRAM 4 All split-level buildings (other than slab -on -grade), either detached or row type (e.g., townhouses); with or without attached garage. Distinguishing Feature — The bottom floor (basement or underground garage) is below ground level (grade) on all sides.* C2.b C2.a r HIGHER i FLOORS GRADE NEXT HIGHER BOTTOM FLOOR FLOOR C2.f—h (datirrrp)nesl by existing grade) DIAGRAM 6 All buildings elevated on piers, posts, piles, columns, or parallel shear walls with full or partial enclosure below the elevated floor. Distinguishing Feature — For all zones, the area below the elevated floor is enclosed, either partially or fully. In A Zones, the partially or fully enclosed area below the elevated floor is with or without openings** present in the walls of the enclosure. Indicate information about enclosure size and openings in Section A — Property Information. j NEXT HIGHER i r FLOOR + �� C2.a C2.b ELEVATED FLOOR enclosure size & openings, if any. tingln� gradee)) C2.0 (For V zones only) exissting * A floor that is below ground level (grade) on all sides is considered a basement even if the floor is used for living purposes, or as an office, garage, workshop, etc. ** An "opening" is a permanent opening that allows for the free passage of water automatically in both directions without human intervention. Under the NFIP, a minimum of 2 openings is required for enclosures or crawlspaces. The openings shall provide a total net area of not less than 1 square inch for every square foot of area enclosed, excluding any bars, louvers, or other covers of the opening. Alternatively, an Individual Engineered Flood Openings Certification or an Evaluation Report issued by the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES) must be submitted to document that the design of the openings will allow for the automatic equalization of hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. A window, a door, or a garage door is not considered an opening; openings may be installed in doors. Openings shall be on at least 2 sides of the enclosed area. If a building has more than 1 enclosed area, each area must have openings to allow floodwater to directly enter. The bottom of the openings must be no higher than 1.0 foot above the higher of the exterior or interior grade or floor immediately below the opening. For more guidance on openings, see NFIP Technical Bulletin 1. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 8 DIAGRAM 7 All buildings elevated on full -story foundation walls with a partially or fully enclosed area below the elevated floor. This includes walkout levels, where at least 1 side is at or above grade. The principal use of this building is located in the elevated floors of the building. Distinguishing Feature — For all zones, the area below the elevated floor is enclosed, either partially or fully. In A Zones, the partially or fully enclosed area below the elevated floor is with or without openings** present in the walls of the enclosure. Indicate information about enclosure size and openings in Section A — Property Information. 1 I C2.a J! NEXT HIGHER FLOOR I C2.b GRADE C2.f WALKOUT LEVEL C2.g (ENCLOSURE) O A8.a :. RB.b—C DIAGRAM 8 All buildings elevated on a crawlspace with the floor of the crawlspace at or above grade on at least 1 side, with or without an attached garage. Distinguishing Feature — For all zones, the area below the first floor is enclosed by solid or partial perimeter walls. In all A zones, the crawlspace is with or without openings** present in the walls of the crawlspace. Indicate information about crawlspace size and openings in Section A — Property Information. 1 1 C2.a i C2.b GRADE NEXT HIGHER FLOOR C2.f C2.g CRAWLSPACE v A8.b—)OPENINGS— DIAGRAM * A floor that is below ground level (grade) on all sides is considered a basement even if the floor is used for living purposes, or as an office, garage, workshop, etc. ** An "opening" is a permanent opening that allows for the free passage of water automatically in both directions without human intervention. Under the NFIR a minimum of 2 openings is required for enclosures or crawlspaces. The openings shall provide a total net area of not less than 1 square inch for every square foot of area enclosed, excluding any bars, louvers, or other covers of the opening. Alternatively, an Individual Engineered Flood Openings Certification or an Evaluation Report issued by the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES) must be submitted to document that the design of the openings will allow for the automatic equalization of hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. A window, a door, or a garage door is not considered an opening; openings may be installed in doors. Openings shall be on at least 2 sides of the enclosed area. If a building has more than 1 enclosed area, each area must have openings to allow floodwater to directly enter. The bottom of the openings must be no higher than 1.0 foot above the higher of the exterior or interior grade or floor immediately below the opening. For more guidance on openings, see NFIP Technical Bulletin 1. NFIP Elevation Certificate Instructions — Page 9 Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound Basin 2013 oe4�r'�a. z FEMARegion 10 �H� s� Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin Produced by FEMA - Region 10 August 2013 FEMA Region 10 For additional information or copies of this guidance: Federal Emergency Management Agency Attn: Mitigation Division Federal Regional Center, Region 10 130 228th St. SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 (425) 487-4600 www. fema. gov/regionx/nhpesa.shtm Contents Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 Background......................................................................................................... 1 Definitions.......................................................................................................... 2 When to Conduct a Habitat Assessment............................................................. 3 AllowedActivities.............................................................................................. 7 Conducting the Assessment.................................................................................... 9 Step 1. Describe the Project Area........................................................................... 9 1.1. Project Area Description.............................................................................. 9 1.2. Project Area Map....................................................................................... 10 Step 2. Describe the Project Area's Habitat.......................................................... 11 2.1. Background Research................................................................................ 11 2.2. Protected Species Identification................................................................. 13 2.3. Site Investigation....................................................................................... 15 2.4. Habitat Narrative........................................................................................ 16 2.5. Habitat Area Map....................................................................................... 23 Step 3. Describe the Project.................................................................................. 23 3.1. Final Project............................................................................................... 24 3.2. Construction Process.................................................................................. 24 3.3. Protection Measures................................................................................ 25 Step 4. Assess the Impact...................................................................................... 27 4.1. Types of Impacts........................................................................................ 28 4.2. Report Format............................................................................................ 31 4.3. Effects Determination................................................................................ 32 4.4. Assessment Report ..................................................................................... 34 Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — i — August 2013 Preparing the Mitigation Plan............................................................................... 34 Step 5. Review Mitigation Alternatives (Mitigation Sequencing) ........................ 34 5.1. Avoidance.................................................................................................. 35 5.2. Minimization.............................................................................................. 36 5.3. Restoration................................................................................................. 37 5.4. Compensation............................................................................................ 38 5.5. Select the Best Approach(es)...................................................................:. 38 Step 6. Prepare the Mitigation Plan...................................................................... 39 6.1. Objective.................................................................................................... 39 6.2. Format........................................................................................................ 40 6.3. Minimum Standards................................................................................... 41 Reviewing Habitat Assessments and Mitigation Plans ......................................... 42 References and Resources................................................................................ .... 43 Federal and State Regulations........................................................................... 43 Mapsand Databases.......................................................................................... 43 Water Quality and Quantity.......................................................... I................... 44 Mitigation.......................................................................................................... 45 Additional References................................................................................... 45 Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — ii — August 2013 Acknowledgements This guidance document was developed by Region10 of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to improve floodplain management practices and assist communities in meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. It was prepared with the advice and assistance of a special advisory committee that included representatives from: — City of Auburn — City of Carnation — City of Everett — Jefferson County — King County — City of Lacey — Lummi Nation — City of Monroe — Pierce County — San Juan County — Snohomish County — City of Tukwila — Washington State Department of Ecology — Whatcom County — The National Marine Fisheries Service' An earlier version of this document was drafted in 2010 by French & Associates, Ltd., Steilacoom, ESA Adolfson, Seattle, and PBS&J, Seattle, through an arrangement with the Insurance Services Office and the Community Rating System. Extensive edits were completed by FEMA Region 10 in 2013. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — iii — August 2013 Introduction Background This Regional Guidance is written to assist communities in meeting the requirements and criteria of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in regard to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In the Puget Sound Basin of Washington those requirements are described in a Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on September 22, 2008. This guide is a companion to the BO for Puget Sound and the Consultation Handbook (NMSFS 1998). It is intended to assist environmental planners, fisheries biologists, and other qualified floodplain and river management professionals who may potentially write or review habitat assessments. This document focuses on requirements specific to the Puget Sound Basin in Washington State, but it may also be useful in other areas of the country. It provides information on methods that communities may utilize to assess the impacts of land management actions on ESA -listed species and their designated critical habitats within the 100-year floodplain. Once NMFS completes a BO for the NFIP in Oregon (a draft BO is expected in late summer 2013), FEMA Region 10 will prepare separate guidance on habitat assessment and mitigation that focuses on requirements throughout Oregon. This document is also designed to support the NFIP-ESA Model Ordinance that was written as one option to comply with the NMFS BO for the NFIP in the Puget Sound Basin, which was prepared by FEMA Region 10. The Model Ordinance includes a BO Checklist which provides a summary of what is required of communities to abide by the ESA under the NFIP. For further details on the BO's requirements, see the Model Ordinance Introduction section and the Biological Opinion text in Appendix E of the Model Ordinance. Communities in Puget Sound have the option of adopting the Model Ordinance (Door 1) or ensuring that their existing regulations fulfill all the requirements of the 2008 BO under either a checklist or programmatic habitat assessment approach (Door 2 options), or via a permit -by - permit approach (Door 3). Sections of the Model Ordinance are referenced in this guidance to help the reader match the requirements with the BO and NFIP regulations. Additional references included in this assessment are listed at the end of the document. The most frequent use of the earlier draft version (2010) of this guidance was to assist communities in preparing or reviewing permit -by -permit (Door 3) NFIP submittals. This revised 2013 guidance will also assist jurisdictions to assess and document ESA compliance reviews for variances issued for projects in Puget Sound, and should be useful to those jurisdictions who are complying with the requirements of the BO via Door 1 or Door 2. One of the options under the Door 2 approach is conduct a full `programmatic' habitat assessment of all the conditions, regulations, and reasonably foreseeable future land actions across an entire analysis area. The content and format of these full programmatic habitat assessments may differ due to variations in: existing regulations; current baseline habitat conditions; and the relative potential for negative impacts to ESA -listed species and their designated critical habitats due to possible future land development actions. In all cases, regardless of what compliance option is selected, the objective is to avoid adverse effects to ESA -listed species and their designated critical habitats by Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 1 — August 2013 protecting the natural functions and processes that support those habitats that are described in this document. This guidance was prepared with technical input from local officials, engineers, natural resources scientists, and planners. It is designed to assist qualified habitat professionals, representing both permit applicants and permit officials to ensure that new development within the Protected Area will not adversely affect the populations or habitats of species listed by the ESA as threatened or endangered, and that any adverse impacts from action occurring beyond the Protected Area will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. These listed species utilize habitats in flood - prone areas, including those areas associated with stream, lake, and marine waters. The 2008 BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound applies to fish species and marine mammals that are listed as threatened or endangered that are administered by the NMFS. The Model Ordinance and this guidance may, however, also help guide assessment of the potential impacts of project actions on bull trout (administered by USFWS) since they are also currently listed as threatened. Bull trout are widely distributed in the upper reaches of many watersheds in Puget Sound. The assessment of impacts to other fish species that become candidates for listing, or proposed to be listed, may also be warranted to assure that project proposals adequately address their needs in the event that they become formally listed while a project is still underway. This assessment guidance does not, however, provide details on possible methods of how to assess impacts to any ESA -listed wildlife, invertebrate, or plant species that may be present, nor impacts to their habitats. Definitions Four terms are used in this guidance and the Model Ordinance for the Puget Sound Basin that may not be the same terms used in a community's regulations: the "Special Flood Hazard Area" (SFHA); "Regulatory Floodplain"; the "Protected Area," and "development." These terms are introduced in the Definitions section of the Model Ordinance (Section 2), and the first three are also defined in more detail in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Model Ordinance. The Regulatory Floodplain is comprised of the combination of SFHA and the Protected Area, where: ■ The SFHA is the area subject to flooding by the base flood (as determined and mapped for each community by FEMA within flood insurance studies and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)); and • In Puget Sound the `Protected Area' consists of those lands that lie within the outermost boundary of the total area comprised by the floodway, and the riparian habitat zone (RBZ), and the channel migration area (CMZ). An example of how the Regulatory Floodplain, the SFHA, and Protected Area interrelate is shown on the next page. A community's ordinance may use a different term to delineate the same or a larger area in order to reach the same objective of addressing adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat in the most sensitive areas. Since these terms are used throughout this Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 2 — August 2013 guidance, the reader may also wish to refer to the full definitions included in Sections 2 and 3 of the Model Ordinance. A fourth term is also used throughout this document. In Section 2, the Model Ordinance for Puget Sound defines "development" as "any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, storage of equipment or materials, subdivision of land, removal of more than 5% of the native vegetation on the property, or alteration of natural site characteristics". When to Conduct a Habitat Assessment Whenever a development project is proposed in the Regulatory Floodplain the property owner must obtain a floodplain development permit from the community. Certain types of projects can be permitted relatively quickly (see "Allowed Activities" below). Unless a community's floodplain management ordinance lists a project action type as exempt from the requirement to complete a habitat assessment, the project applicant must complete an assessment that describes the impact of the proposed development on existing floodplain and instream habitat functions and processes. The scope and detail of that assessment may vary as needed to portray possible impacts for each project. If the anticipated project effects are clearly limited in nature and extent, it may be possible to describe them in a relatively short assessment. The greater the complexity, scope, and/or risk of possible impacts to ESA -listed species or their habitats, the more likely it will be that the habitat assessment will need to be in-depth to portray impacts and planned mitigation (relative to outside of the Protected Area). In the Puget Sound Basin no short- or long-term adverse effects to ESA -listed species or their designated critical habitats are allowed to occur within the floodway or the riparian buffer zone (RBZ), except as is conditioned under some limited exceptions. This requirement extends beyond the RBZ to the outer extent of the channel migration zone (CMZ), or throughout the 100- year floodplain in those locations where a CMZ has not been mapped. As noted above, the Protected Area is the greater of the floodway, RBZ, and/or the CMZ. Within the Protected Area adverse effects can't be minimized, rectified, or compensated for, they must be avoided. Beyond the Protected Area any actions that would adversely affect ESA -listed species or their critical habitats must be fully mitigated. In descending order of preference, the mitigation sequence is avoidance, minimization, rectify (replacement), and/or in -kind or out -of -kind compensatory mitigation. The habitat assessment needs to describe any impacts to habitat functions due to actions occurring both within the Protected Area as well as beyond it in the remainder of the 100-year floodplain. The assessment must demonstrate that there will be no short- or long-term adverse effects due to actions within the Protected Area, with the limited exceptions listed below. Actions that located within the Protected Area that would potentially result in adverse effects to ESA -listed species or their designated critical habitats must either be redesigned to avoid those effects, or the project can't be permitted. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 3 — August 2013 Under the Model Ordinance (Door 1) option in Puget Sound, an adverse impact on flooding is prevented through the ordinance requirements for a floodway or encroachment analysis (Section 7.5 of the Model Ordinance), and for providing compensatory storage for any lost flood -storage capacity (Section 7.6). The impact of a project on habitat functions and processes is more complicated because there is often little or no information on the site's baseline (pre -project) natural features. A habitat assessment is needed to identify those natural functions and to complete an analysis that estimates what effects the proposed action will have upon ESA -listed species and their critical habitats (Section 7.7 in the Model Ordinance). There are only four circumstances where a habitat assessment would not be required: 1. Projects that are listed as exempt from conducting a habitat assessment in the BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound. These exemptions must be listed in the community's ordinance. 2. Project actions that are covered under separate consultations under Section 4(d), 7, or 10 of the ESA. 3. When the project under consideration has already been covered by a full programmatic habitat assessment of all current and reasonably foreseeable future conditions throughout a jurisdiction. When such an assessment already exists, and the project clearly fits within the nature and scope of those project types that were addressed by it, then the jurisdiction need only document and track how they evaluated that it was covered by that assessment. 4. If a jurisdiction adopts all the requirements within the NMFS BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound into their local ordinances, and requires compliance of all conditions on every land parcel within the FEMA regulatory floodplain, habitat assessments for individual projects are not required to be completed. It should be noted that projects requiring a federal permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would likely need a consultation process through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regula- tory Branch. The Section 404 permit process includes consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or NMFS. Such consultation is required under Section 7 of the ESA. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 4 — August 2013 Flood Hazard Area and Floodway Channel Migration Area r' !•:: V F�na l l X Riparian Habitat Zone eA r. 1i; . i -:' A�...� _- } t 'l :186rri srcy.e r roi TH 5TIr.' • f Legend Stream centerline ;�IRoadway Riparian Habitat Zone C3 Channel Migration Area 5pe0al Flood Haaard Area �= Protected Area This graphic shows the relative locations of the floodway, riparian habitat zone, and the channel migration area, the determinants of the Protected Area. The Regulatory Floodplain includes all of the SFHA and all of the Protected Area. Enforcing the ordinance throughout the Regulatory Floodplain is needed to comply with the Endangered Species Act. A community can receive CRS credit if the Regulatory Floodplain extends beyond the SFHA. Source: Pierce County, 2007, GeoEngineers, 2005; USDA, 2006 (Air Photo) Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 5 — August 2013 If a permit applicant has prepared a Biological Evaluation BE ( ) or a Biological g cal Assessment BA and has received concurrence from USFWS or NMFS (via either a Letter of Concurrence or(a ),'� BO) that covers the full scope of the proposed action, the project is deemed to comply with the ESA. In such cases the additional habitat assessment requirements of this guidance are not required (see Section 7.7-A of the Model Ordinance). If it is determined that a habitat assessment is needed, a recommended step-by-step approach to complete that assessment is described in this guidance. This process will provide sufficient information to assess and document the likely effects of the proposed project, but the approach does not have to be followed exactly as described. If a different approach is followed it must, however, provide sufficient data and analysis to describe baseline conditions and likely effects on ESA-Iisted species and their designated critical habitat, and conclude with an effects determination that is well supported by that analysis. The process recommended in this guidance is summarized in the flow chart on the following page. Steps 1 —4 comprise the basic habitat assessment for a project. It is not intended to represent comprehensive instructions for how a jurisdiction should complete a `programmatic', comprehensive habitat assessment of existing conditions and impacts of community's regulations across its entire jurisdiction (e.g. conditions within all of the watersheds in a jurisdiction) , but it helps describe the information that would be needed to complete such an extensive and inclusive programmatic assessment. Some communities may conduct such programmatic assessments with differing approaches based on their land uses and regulatory structure, data and GIS-covers available, and goals. Some jurisdictions in Puget Sound have completed such assessments, and parties interested in seeing those examples can contact FEW to receive information regarding who to contact to request copies (they are property of the jurisdiction and hence permission to receive a copy must come from that jurisdiction). If the assessment finds that an adverse effect may occur due to impacts from the proposed action, then the permit applicant must prepare a plan that identifies the steps that the applicant will take to modify the proposed action to avoid any adverse effects to ESA -listed fish species or their critical habitats if action occurs within the Protected Area, or to fully minimize and compensate for any adverse impacts if the action occurs beyond (outside) the Protected Area in the remainder of the 100-year floodplain (Section 7.8 in the Model Ordinance and Steps 5 — 6 in this document). Jurisdictions must be able to document their mitigation plan and identify what are required versus recommended mitigation measures. In some manner they must also be able to monitor and document (track) the implementation and effectiveness of the plan, and any enforcement actions taken, and be able to provide that information to FEW if requested. Communities can request technical assistance from FEMA when they draft programmatic habitat assessments, or review those prepared by others for projects within their jurisdictions. Applicants under the permit -by -permit approach (Door 3) may seek assistance from the jurisdiction for preparation Of the assessment. If the project is complex, it's recommended that the applicant begin with conceptual development plans and conduct a preliminary assessment before they invest in detailed project plans and specifications. Continued communication with community staff will also help identify problems and solutions before significant time and/or Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 6 — August 2013 . money is spent on a project that may require additional mitigation measures, or need to be redesigned or abandoned. it may be necessary for some communities with limited staff to request assistance from their neighboring jurisdictions, tribes, or other partners to help assess the : adequacy of draft habitat assessments written on their behalf. This guidance document allows for flexibility in the format of many aspects of the assessment. Review of draft assessments will require some familiarity of the range of formats that adequately portray and interpret fisheries population and habitat survey data. A permit applicant should weigh the cost of preparing the assessment and the mitigation plan, should one be needed, against the cost of locating the project outside the Regulatory Floodplain. It may cost less in time and money to simply avoid the SFiIA and the Protected Area. Allowed Activities -E As described earlier, a habitat assessment is not required for certain limited activities if they are listed as exempt under the NFIP BO, and are specified by the community's floodplain manage- ment ordinance, or if the project is covered by an existing ESA consultation. The general exemptions are limited to: a) Repair or remodel of an existing building in its existing footprint, including buildings damaged by fire or other casualties; b) Removal of noxious weeds; c) Replacement of non-native vegetation with native vegetation; d) Ongoing activities such as lawn and garden maintenance; e) Removal of hazard trees; f) Normal maintenance of public utilities and facilities; and h) Restoration or enhancement of floodplains, riparian areas and streams that meets Federal and State standards (BO for the NFIP for Puget Sound, Appendix 4 — page 223, NMFS 2008). In addition, the Model Ordinance (Sections 7.1 and 7.2) identifies two types of activities that can proceed without the habitat assessment. The reader must check the community's flood management ordinance because it may have a slightly different list. Section 7.1 of the Model Ordinance clarifies that some activities are not considered "development" and, therefore, do not need a floodplain development permit, provided all other state and local requirements are met. An example would be normal maintenance of structures, such as re -roofing and replacing siding (provided they are not part of a larger project that would need a permit). The Model Ordinance's list is not included here, because the community's list may be different. Section 7.2 of the Model Ordinance lists other activities which are allowed in the Regulatory F000dplain without the floodway analysis or the habitat impact assessment required under Sections 7.5 and 7.7, providing they meet all the community's other requirements and a floodpiain development permit is issued. Again, the Model Ordinance's list is not included here, because the community's list may be different and takes precedence. _ 7 _ August 2013 Habitat Assessment and Mitigation is the project in the Regulated Floodplain? YES I NO Has a Biological Evaluation been prepared for the project and have NMFS and/or USFWS determined concurrence with the project under Section 7 of the ESA? YES�� NO Is the development project an allowed activity? YES Conduct the Assessment Step 1: Describe the Project Area NO Step 2: Describe the Habitat Step 3: Describe the Project Step 4: Assess the Impact Will the project cause an adverse impact? i NO Prepare the Mitigation Plan YES Step 5: Review Mitigation Altematives Step 6: Prepare the Mitigation Plan Redesign the project to incorporate the plan's r mitigation measures Is the plan acceptable? YES NO ■ Redesign the project or the mitigation measures Proceed with the project, getting all required permits Habitat Assessment Flow Chart Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 8 — August 2013 Conducting the Assessment The following steps should be taken to adequately identify and address the impacts a proposed project may have on habitat within the Regulatory Floodplain. In circumstances where an approved habitat assessment (Steps 1 through 4) determines that no impacts to habitat functions associated with ESA -listed species will occur, development of a mitigation plan is not necessary. However, for any activity requiring a habitat assessment within the Regulatory Floodplain, it is highly likely that impacts to habitats associated with ESA -listed species will occur. When habitat impacts are identified, a mitigation plan must be prepared for the project, in accordance with Steps 5 and 6. Step 1. Describe the Project Area The project area is generally the parcel or parcels being developed. In some cases, the project may extend to a larger area, such as when a road to the parcel is to be built or improved, or when the effects of several interrelated or interdependent proposed land development actions are considered together. Step 1 should produce two documents: 1.1. Project Area Description If a Washington State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form has been prepared for the project, it will include the general project area description information that would be included as part of the habitat assessment. JARPAs are completed when a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit is required by WDFW, and/or a 401 water type certification is needed from Washington State Department of Ecology, and/or a 404 permit is needed from the USACE for excavation or filling of water bodies. The JARPA may not, however, adequately describe all the natural functions and processes that support habitat, species distribution, hydrologic variables, and/or water quality that need to be addressed in a habitat assessment. At a minimum, a Washington State JARPA form would include the following information: Location information: o Street address o City and County o Township, section, and range o Latitude and longitude o Tax parcel number(s) of the project location o Type of ownership of the project (Federal, State, or locally owned public lands; tribal lands; privately owned lands) — Water resource information: o Watershed name o Water resource inventory area (WRIA). Information on Puget Sound basin WRIAs can be found at the Washington State Department of Ecology's watershed planning Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 9 — August 2013 webpage: http://www.ecy-wa.gov/watershed/index.htmi and the mapping webpage at: httl2://www.ccy.wa.gov/services/gis/mal2s/wria/wria.htm o Water bodies in which work will occur, including water typing. For more information on water typing and a map that designates the types for major water bodies, see the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing webpage at: www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/To ics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pmes/fp ware rtyping.aspx o Water bodies bordering or adjacent to the project location, including water typing. o Shoreline Management Areas associated with shorelines of the state, as managed by the State Shoreline Management Act and local Shoreline Master Programs. Shoreline Management Area information should include the Shoreline Environment designation and a description of the approximate extent of jurisdiction. To identify associated Shoreline Management Areas and Shoreline Environment designations review the jurisdiction's Shoreline Master Program and contact the local permitting official. o Critical Areas associated with streams, designated pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the local critical area ordinance. Critical areas management information should include the critical areas designation and a description of the extent of jurisdiction. — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) in the project action area (cited by name with a short description). FWHCAs are designated by local governments pursuant to the Growth Management Act. They should include: waters of the state (i.e., Type S streams and shorelines); habitats for species that are endangered or threatened (including designated critical habitats and areas where the presence of listed species is documented); habitats for species of local importance, and natural area preserves. The community should have a list of designated FWHCAs and/or criteria for designating them. 1.2. Project Area Map The second item needed for Step 1 is a map, drawn to scale that delineates the following: — Parcel(s) boundaries — Full analysis area — Area of the finished project (including roads) — Any additional area(s) that will be disrupted during construction (including access routes, staging areas, and areas to be re -graded or filled) — All water bodies — Site topography, soils and geology — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas — Existing native vegetation by vegetation community zones. For example, a map could distinguish areas with existing coniferous forest cover versus areas with existing shrub cover vs. areas with existing meadow cover. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 10 — August 2013 — Boundaries of the following regulatory areas (see Section 3 of the Model Ordinance) o Special Flood Hazard Area o Floodway o Riparian habitat zone o Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) — Depths of the 10- and 100-year floods at representative locations. These only need to be provided when flood data is available from existing studies or the community. Step 2. Describe the Project Area's Habitat During Step 2 of the habitat assessment, the applicant describes the existing habitat conditions of the project area. Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 of Step 2 are largely based on existing scientific information on species use and current habitat functions in the project action areas. 2.1. Background Research Step 2 needs to start with an examination of existing sources of information relevant to threatened or endangered species and their habitats in or near the project area in order to adequately describe current population and habitat conditions. There may be thorough inventories already available. The following sources should be checked, and appropriate sections referenced as needed: — The community's planning or environmental protection department for critical areas inventory maps; best available science consistency studies; designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; Shoreline Master Program; flood control and floodplain management plans; watershed analyses; and habitat studies — The community's parks and/or natural resources departments natural area studies — National Marine Fisheries Service distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species (www.nwr.noaa.covl — National Marine Fisheries Service critical habitat maps (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhahitat.htm — US Fish and Wildlife Service distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species (www.fws. av/westwafwo/s eciesma .html) — US Fish and Wildlife Service critical habitat maps (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/ and (www.fws.vovipaciflc/builtrout/ ) — USFWS National Wetland Inventory maps www.fws. ovlwetlands — USFWS and NMFS habitat recovery plans, when published for ESA listed species in the project vicinity o USFWS: (www.fws.gov/pacific] Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 11 — August 2013 o NMFS: (www.nwr.noaa.gov) — U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey maps ( http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ ) — Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm) — Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Assessment (www.ecy wa gov/grogramslwq/303d/2008/index.html) — Inter -agency basin fisheries recovery plans. These are usually written for a Washington State Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA), and lead by a county or tribe. They often contain much of the most detailed and most current information available regarding populations and habitat conditions (request the county or tribe for citation and access if such a local recovery plan exists). — Stream surveys conducted by tribes or federal, state, or local agencies. Such surveys may contain detailed information on habitat conditions and fish species presence from redd surveys, or snorkeling or electroshocking surveys. Recent other projects near the action area may also have collected stream survey data. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 12 — August 2013 2.2. Protected Species Identification The review of the existing research should identify all federally -listed species and designated critical habitats, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as defined by the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, affected EFH species, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas that occur in or near the project action area. Species or habitats that have a viable potential to be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively negatively impacted by proposed ground disturbing actions need to be described. The appropriate spatial and temporal scales for each form of potential impact must also be identified and briefly explained. Further discussion of potentially measurable or observable impacts, and the appropriate spatial and temporal scales for effect analysis, will occur later in this document. The table below is an example of how species presence and ESA status of populations and Critical Habitat could be presented. Additional columns could also be inserted to list the status of EFH and other categories when present and convenient to describe in a tabular format. Occurrence of Listed Species and Critical Habitat in or Near the Project Area. (Sample Display) Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Jurisdiction Critical Habitat Present Puget Sound Evolutionarily Oncorhynchus Threatened NMFS Yes Significant Unit (ESU) tshawytscha Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Distinct O. mykiss Threatened NMFS None currently Population Segment (DPS) designated, but possibly Steelhead will be soon Coastal -Puget Sound DPS Salvelinus Threatened USFWS Yes Bull Trout confluentus To obtain general maps of the distribution of ESA -listed or proposed species, listed critical habitats, and any areas designated Essential Fish Habitat check with the NMFS and USFWS data sources described in Section 2.1 of this document.. Please note that the maps of potential fish distribution at these websites are not necessarily the most detailed or accurate which exist. The regional or local offices of NMFS, USFWS, WDFW, tribes, or local land management agencies may be able to provide more accurate maps based on recent fish and habitat surveys, including known migration barriers. EFH species are managed by NMFS. On the west coast of the United States there are three EFH salmon species that potentially occur in freshwater systems, namely pink, coho, and Chinook salmon. If project actions may potentially negatively impact estuarine and marine systems, numerous species of ground fish and coastal pelagic fishes may also need to be considered that are listed under EFH. This task should summarize the biological and ecological information that will be needed for the habitat assessment. Appropriate information on the specie(s) life histories, their habitat and distributions, and other data on habitat life cycle variables necessary for their survival or possible Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 13 — August 2013 recovery in the future must be included in order to provide sufficient background for the analyses in later sections. It is important to note that even though the 2008 BO for Puget Sound focuses on salmon and EFH species managed by NMFS, all threatened or endangered plant and animal species in or near the project area need to be addressed. If other ESA -listed species are present or are potentially present, it may be necessary to conduct additional surveys, methods, and assessments beyond those described in this guidance. Several sources of existing information are listed above in Section 2.1. When some of these documents contain relevant information, that information can simply be cited by page -specific reference. Other sources are the locally developed Best Available Science (BAS) documentation reports, which are required to be prepared by each community for their critical areas standards under the state's Growth Management Act. Other documents that are available for review to examine the general format and guidance on how some agencies conduct biological assessments include: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ESA Consultation Initiation Template (USACE 2007) htt :Ilwww. k.usace.arm .miVPortaW121documentslre ulaty 1 df1ESA pdfl Tenm late Guidance. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effectfor Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale (NMFS 1996). h :Ilwww.nwr.noaa. ovlPublicationslReference-Documentslu loadlmatrix 1996. d Washington Department of Transportation Biological Assessment Preparation Manual (WSDOT 2012) htt :Ilwww.wsdat.wa. ov1Environment1Bio10 IBAJBA uidance.htm#manual ] Oregon Department of Transportation Biological Assessment and Guidance Document (ODOT 2005). [h :Ilcros.ore on, ovIODOT/HWYIGEOENVIRONMENTAUdocslBAWritin Document. d The Pacific Northwest Region of NMFS currently does not formally recommend use of any specific template for Biological Assessments (other than the `Analytical Process' for some specific land management actions like timber sales on Federal lands), but rather allows the potential use of a variety of formats. Habitat assessments must describe existing conditions of ESA -listed populations, and those habitat functions that potentially support ESA -listed species, in or near the action area. It must then describe the potential impacts of the proposed actions on the populations of those species and their habitats. The detail and extent of the assessments will vary by the nature and scope of the proposal and the potential for negative impacts. This section's narrative should include, but not necessarily be limited to descriptions and discussions of the following topics: i. Factors of decline a. Historical pressures on the species b. Current pressures on the species Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 14 — August 2013 c. Limiting factors for recovery of the species ii. Local empirical information (if available) a. Current local population information b. Ongoing monitoring programs (if any) c. Population trend of the species Following the description of the protected species, there should be a summary of the habitat needs for each species. This section of the narrative needs to identify and describe the key Example Primary Constituent Elements (Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, 50 CFR Part 226, Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005) 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction factors that are important for the protected species. These Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are the key habitat components required for an ESA listed species, as identified in the final critical habitat rules and published in the Federal Register for listed species (see example in the box). The PCEs must be described when critical habitat may potentially be affected. In those cases where listed Critical Habitat is not present near the project action area, describing available habitat in terms of the PCE variables is still recommended in order to concisely depict key habitat features. 2.3. Site Investigation Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 give the applicant guidance on where to look and what to look for regarding species potentially present at the site. Following completion of the first parts of Step 2, a site visit is needed to determine if there are habitat areas that identified species have a "primary association'. "Habitats of primary association" include critical components of the habitats which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the listed species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. A site visit and determination of site -specific conditions is necessary to determine what actual impacts to ESA -listed species, EFH, and associated habitats may occur. This process must identify, but is not limited to, those areas discussed in Step 2.2 as being primary constituent elements for each ESA -listed species within the project area. For example, identification of Chinook salmon habitat areas of primary association should look for those constituent elements listed in the box above. A description of the riparian and instream habitat conditions that exist in both upstream and downstream of the project action area is also needed. This description of existing baseline habitat functions must, at a minimum, include those habitat functions that are listed in the BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound. These functions are described in the next section on the habitat narrative. In addition, it is especially important to note the locations and distances from the proposed project area relative to any stream reaches that may potentially support ESA -listed species or contain designated critical habitat. The description of habitat and general conditions in the project area should also identify existing modifications to the project site within the Regulatory Floodplain, including existing structures, roads, impervious areas and graded or filled areas. Any existing modification that is impairing habitats of primary association and habitat functions identified should be described (discussed in Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 15 — August 2013 the next section). Including activities to restore habitat in these modified areas could help the assessment conclude that there will be no adverse effects to habitat due to the project (see also Task 3.3 of Step 3). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (see References and Resources section of this guidance) describes common land uses and modifications that impair riparian habitats; the site investigation should look for these possible modifications. In general, actions that have the potential to result in adverse effects to ESA -listed fish or their critical habitats involve either: • bank armoring; or • channel straightening or other adverse impacts to channel form; or • habitat isolation; reduced flood storage capacity; or • degraded water quality; increases in delivery of sediments to channels via surface erosion, avulsions, or mass failures; or • increases in the peak, magnitude, or duration of flood flows; or • reductions in the discharge of low summer baseflows or increases in the duration or recurrence of very low baseflows; or ■ the removal of riparian vegetation (except for the removal of noxious plants). 2.4. Habitat Narrative The findings of the field investigation are used to prepare a description of the habitat areas of primary association that will need to be protected. The narrative for this part of the assessment report needs to describe the presence and quality of the natural features that relate to the primary constituent elements for all the species and habitat areas that were identified in Tasks 2.2 and 2.3. As described in the final paragraph of Task 2.2, primary constituent elements are the key habitat components required for an ESA -listed species, as identified in the final rules that were published in the Federal Register when species are listed. The narrative must identify what functions are relatively intact and which are impaired by previous site and/or area (e.g. sub - watershed, watershed, or basin scale) modifications. The BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound states that within the Protected Area adverse effects must not occur to: 1) water quality; 2) water quantity; 3) flood volumes; 4) flood velocities; 5) spawning substrate; or 6) floodplain refugia for ESA -listed fish. The site investigation and resulting habitat narrative must, therefore, include a description of the existing conditions for those variables when any action is proposed within the Protected Area. The BO further states that outside of the Protected Area that any negative effects to: 7) stormwater discharge; 8) riparian vegetation; 9) channel migration; I0) large woody input; 11) gravel recruitment; 12) the hyporheic zone; 13) wetlands; or 14) bank stability must be fully mitigated. The site investigation and resulting habitat narrative must, therefore, also include a description of the existing conditions for those latter variables when any action is proposed outside of the Protected Area. It is possible that there may be limited information available from the sources identified in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2. The habitat narrative must note where this occurs and clarify where statements are Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 16 — August 2013 based on scientific reports and data, and where they are based on the professional opinion of the author. This is one of the most vital aspects of the assessment and is required in order for readers to assess the basis and relative confidence of statements related to current conditions and estimated environmental effects. The narrative also needs to include a discussion of what the relative potential for channel migration is within the area being analyzed (either the project-, sub -watershed-, or watershed - scale), and what the basis is for the assessment. Migrating channels have the potential to affect several of the habitat functions described below. In addition, some land development actions may impact key habitat functions if the channel migrates into the project area, and project features restrict where the channel can move, which may result in degradation of some riparian or instream habitat functions. The variables listed below should be considered for each spatial area of analysis in order to ensure that the assessment will cover all the factors required by the Biological Opinion (Appendix A, part 3), and Section 7.7.13 of the Model Ordinance. In many cases the analysis scale will be a small action area, while some may include sites in multiple watersheds. In each case the extent and detail needed for the assessment will vary by the nature, scope, and scale of the proposed action. In many cases the project will not have the potential to affect many (or any) of the habitat functions listed below. When that is the case, the assessment simply needs to make it clear why the project does not have any significant potential to degrade some or all of these variables. The list below is intended to assist jurisdictions in considering all possible impacts to aquatic habitat and ESA -listed fish species due to major land management actions. The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs). These are identified in the final rules that designated critical habitat for listed threatened and endangered species (see the NMFS and USFWS critical habitat map links within the References and Resources section to access final rules for ESA listed species). For example, for an inland site with Chinook salmon habitat (see box on page 13) the first three sections of the habitat narrative would cover freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, and freshwater migration corridors. In those cases where designated critical habitat is not present near the project action area, describing available habitat in terms of the PCE variables is still recommended in order to concisely depict key habitat features. The distance and locations of the nearest critical habitat relative to the project area need to be listed in order that the potential of project impact to impact these areas be known (e.g. via sediment transport). • Water Quality • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions (e.g. grading, stormwater, or road construction) that may have any potential to cause measurable degradation to water quality variables within the action area, and how was this assessed? • If so, which variables may be affected? Water quality variables that should be considered include turbidity, pH, total dissolved gas (percent of saturation), bacteria, toxics, and pollutants. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 17 — August 2013 In Washington State the numeric standards for turbidity, pH, total dissolved gas, and bacteria vary by location depending on the state's designated uses for salmon and charr fish species listed for the river reach in question (i.e. spawning, rearing, and/or migration). Washington has also adopted narrative criteria to supplement its numeric criteria for some variables. The narrative criteria are statements that describe the desired water quality goal, such as waters being "free from" pollutants such as oil and scum, color and odor, and other substances that can harm people and fish. Information on the designated uses and the numeric and narrative criteria for water quality in Washington can be found at: http_//an s�.leg.wa_gov/WAC/defauIt.asl2x?cite=l73-201A ■ Is there any potential for the project to result in not meeting state water quality standards any water quality variables (over any temporal scale) within the defined action area? If so, which variables? How was the action area selected, and how was the assessment conducted? Reaches of streams that are known to be impaired and to not meet water quality criteria for one or more variables are required to be listed under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The absence of a river reach being included on one of these lists does not necessarily ensure that it meets all water quality standards for all variables, possibly only that no sampling (if any has occurred) has demonstrated that it does not meet standards. Data on some water quality variables is extremely limited or non-existent for in many some stream and river reaches. Water body segments only become listed via documented repeated violations that are estimated to likely be man -caused. Jurisdictions in Washington should advise Ecology regarding any water quality data that they are aware of that is additional to what is cited in the current 303(d) for a specific river reach. Ecology will access such data to see if it meets their minimum QA/QC standards, and if so, if that data may result in a change in the 303(d) list the next time they update it. Information on the 303(d) is found at: www.ec .wa. ov/Pro ms/w /303d/i ddex.html. Water body segments (i.e. stream reaches, lakes, marine waters) that appear on the 303(d) list require the preparation of a plan to restore water quality, which often takes the form of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. Habitat assessments should include consideration of the current status of water quality in the project action area, and evaluate if the project proposal has any potential to further degrade any variables, including any that are already listed as not meeting State standards. ■ If there is any potential for degradation of any water quality variables, what are the estimated effects to ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats within the action area, and how was this assessed? In addition, what is the maximum estimated spatial scale and maximum time period when any possible impacts to ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats might occur? Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 18 — August 2013 Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions or regulations that may cause measurable increases in water temperature or decreases in dissolved oxygen (DO) in any locations, and how was this assessed? • If there is any potential for measurable impacts, is there any potential for water temperature or DO (over any temporal scale) to not meet State water quality standards within the action area(s)? [see Water Quality section above for hyperlinks to standards in Washington ] • If there is any potential for measurable impacts, what is the estimated effect (at all temporal scales) to ESA -listed fish species and how was this assessed? • If so, what is the maximum estimated spatial scale and locations (including any downstream effects), and maximum time period when impacts to ESA -listed fish species may occur? • Low Flow Hydrologic Regimes (including hyporheic flows) • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially cause changes to the magnitude, duration, or recurrence intervals of low summer baseflows in any locations over any temporal scale, and how was this assessed? • If therc is any potential for changes, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? ■ High Flow (flood) Hydrologic Regimes • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially cause changes to the magnitude, duration, or recurrence intervals of 10-, 50-, or 100-year flood flows in any locations, and how was this assessed? • If there is any potential for changes, what effect would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? Site flood dynamics and hydrology must be assessed to varying degrees to ensure that analysis is adequate and appropriate for the nature of the proposed action, and the habitat resources potentially at risk. Flood flow depths, volumes, velocities, and flow paths have an important effect on the way habitat is formed. The habitat narrative should describe these factors with an emphasis placed on the effects of flood events on habitats. Tributary streams, seeps, stormwater outfalls, waterways that pass through the project site, and other water sources should be identified and described. This discussion may rely on and reference other flood and site hydrology studies prepared for the project, and should be focused on how flood dynamics and hydrology impact local habitat areas. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 19 — August 2013 A semi -quantitative or qualitative assessment of water quantity should usually be sufficient for projects limited in scope, scale, and overall potential to result in negative impacts to ESA -listed fish populations and their critical habitats. Projects with more potential for measurable or observable negative impacts will sometimes require more rigorous examinations of hydrologic or sediment regimes based on best available data, and often on correlations to existing gage stations. They may also require more intensive field surveys and possibly 1- or 2- dimensional flow modeling to describe likely extents of inundation, water velocities, and possible changes to instream and riparian habitat due to future flood events. • Flood Velocities • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially cause increases in water velocities in streams or rivers during high flow events, and how was this assessed? • If there any potential for increases in high flow velocities, is there also any potential for measurable increases in streambed or stream bank shear, or velocities in fish habitat units (e.g. pools, glides, side -channels) that provide refugia for ESA -listed species from high velocities (i.e. the `nose' velocities that fish encounter) within the channel over any temporal scale at any locations? How was this estimated? ■ If there is any potential for changes in flood velocities, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? Sediment Delivery (erosion) and Sediment Regime (in -stream transport) • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially cause increased rates of surface erosion, delivery of sediments to water bodies, or total loadings (volumes) of sediment transported in rivers that provide potential habitat to ESA -listed species? How was this assessed? • If there is any potential for increases, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? • Stream Substrate The quality, quantity, and general distribution of substrate particle size needs to be described in those cases where there is potential for the substrates of spawning, rearing, feeding, or refugia habitat of ESA -listed fish to be degraded by project actions. In some cases this may include impacts from transport of sediments downstream of the project site. If the proposed actions have the potential to deliver significant quantities of fine - sediments to stream reaches in listed critical habitat, or in those areas that may otherwise provide potential habitat to ESA- listed species, the percent fines (e.g. per Washington Administrative Code regarding water quality, the fraction of all particles in a given Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 20 — August 2013 stream reach with sediment less than 0.85 mm in diameter) needs to be estimated, and the analysis methods need to be described. This information is required in order to describe the current condition of one of the key habitat characteristics for fish, and estimate how (if) any additional inputs of fine -sediments may degrade the current quality of stream substrate habitat. In those limited cases where impacts of sediment may be a significant concern, it may also be necessary to fully describe current substrate conditions in those stream reaches that could be impacted. If this is the case, this description needs to include the general range of the substrate types that currently exist across each different channel type in potentially affected stream reaches. The specific questions that need to be addressed are: • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially cause increased rates of aggradation of fine -sediments (those less than approximately 0.85 mm diameter, i.e. sand, silt and clay particles) or coarse -sediments on potential substrates for spawning, feeding, rearing, or migration? How was this assessed? • If there is any potential for increases, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? Floodplain Connectivity Disconnecting a river from its floodplain impacts several other functions that directly impact the quality and quantity of habitat that supports ESA -listed species. Connectivity affects the potential for natural lateral migrations and hydrologic connectivity between the stream and its floodplain, including the groundwater systems, and the production and utilization of organic matter by riparian and aquatic communities. The hydrologic connections provide the means of temporary storage of flood waters, while also providing key off -channel habitats, and a source of water during dry summer base -flow periods. Many urbanized watersheds have lost these functions to varying degrees. Biological diversity can't be maintained in stream ecosystems, nor do they have the potential to recover from major episodic disturbances, if the stream is largely disconnected from its floodplain. Some of these diverse habitat types also provide refuge from high velocity flows during flood events (see discussion below). The habitat assessment needs to describe the current condition of floodplain connections and processes. This can usually be accomplished in a brief narrative via a combination of a site visit and examining aerial photography. Some of the conditions that need to be noted include, but are not necessarily limited to: the extent of the channel migration zone; general channel geometry in the potentially affected stream reaches, including the distribution and size of riffles and pools; review of FIRM maps (if they exist); and identification of any side -channels and tributaries. Specific questions that need to be addressed include: Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 21 — August 2013 • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially affect the extent and level of the connection of stream channels to their floodplain? How was this assessed? • If there is any potential for changing the extent or level of floodplain connectivity, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? ■ Refugia for ESA -listed Fish Species from High Velocity Flows • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially affect the location, extent, or quality of habitat available for ESA -listed fish species from high velocity flows in side channels and other areas across the floodplain when over -bank flows occur? How was this assessed? • If there is any potential for changes in the extent or quality of refugia, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? ■ Riparian Vegetative Community (providing bank stability, food input to streams, nutrient cycling, potential for recruitment of large woody debris to streams, shade, buffering of sediment and pollutants, etc..). This assessment should include, but not necessarily be limited to, a discussion of conditions throughout any mapped channel migration area. Freshwater riparian conditions should be characterized by describing conditions as they relate to the riparian habitat functions. In Washington State those functions are discussed in the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) guidance for Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (see Appendices B and C at b=://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ripxsum.htm). The functions that riparian communities affect include water temperature control, recruitment of large woody debris, filtering of sediment and pollutants, erosion control, bank stability, and influence on microclimatology. Characterization of marine shoreline conditions should be consistent with guidance from state agencies, such as the WDFW's and Ecology's (Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout), and with other Puget Sound nearshore guidance materials listed in the References and Resources section of this guidance. Questions that should be addressed include: • Does the proposed action assessed by the jurisdiction include any actions that could potentially degrade the quantity or quality of the riparian vegetative community? How was this assessed? • If the project has any potential to affect riparian vegetation, describe the general species, sizes, areas, and percent covers of current baseline levels of riparian vegetation. • If the project has any potential to affect riparian vegetation, describe the general species, sizes, areas, and percent covers that would result from the proposed action. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 22 — August 2013 • If there is any potential for degradation of the riparian vegetative community, how would: • The extent, rate, and quality of nutrient cycling, buffering, food input from terrestrial sources to streams (i.e. allochthonous food), and recruitment of large woody debris be impacted? • The extent and quality of bank stability and stream shading be impacted? • If there is any potential for degradation for some of the functions that riparian community provides, what impact would those changes have upon ESA -listed fish species and/or their critical habitats in the project action area, and what is the maximum estimated spatial and temporal scale of effects? 2.5. Habitat Area Map Once all habitat areas of primary association are identified and described, they should be delineated on a map. The map should be to the same scale as the project area map (Task 1.2) to facilitate comparison of the habitat to be protected with the extent of the Regulatory Floodplain, the Protected Area, the riparian habitat zone, and other relevant features such as watercourses and wetlands. Step 3. Describe the Project There are two key parts of the project that need to be described at this stage of the assessment report: 1) the final project, i.e., what the area will look like and how it will be used when the project is completed; and 2) the construction process that will be followed to get there. The description of the final project should be covered first. Measures taken by the proponent to avoid, minimize, replace, or compensate (i.e. the descending order of preference of the mitigation sequence) for degradation to the habitat functions must be described in enough detail to allow assessment of all the effects of the proposed action. It needs to be clear whether each measure is required, or if it is only recommended. It can't be assumed that recommended actions will actually occur, so their potential positive impacts can't be part of the assured result. As is the case for Task 1.1, if a Washington State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form has been prepared for the project, it will include the general project description information required for the habitat assessment, but usually not all the information needed for the habitat assessment. Applying for a JARPA falls under the Washington State Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance. More information regarding the application process and the JARPA form template can be found at: www.ora.wa.gov/resources/Sermitting.asl2. If the information that is already being provided in a Washington State JARPA includes the level of detail described in this guidance, the community may accept the application form as sufficient for the project description. If a Washington State JARPA has not been prepared for the project, the project area description should, at a minimum, include the information included in Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 of this section. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 23 — August 2013 3.1. Final Project All features of a completed project must be described. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to: — A summary of the project, including all features that will be present when construction is finished — Project category (industrial, commercial, residential, institutional, transportation, recreational, maintenance, agriculture, and environmental restoration) — A description of the general design, location relative to nearest water bodies, and general dimensions of the footprints of any structures and facilities including, but not necessarily limited to: buildings, boat launches, docks, pilings, fences, roads, bridges, culverts, trails, roads, paved areas — Detailed descriptions of all structures or facilities that would potentially impact water bodies or wetlands including, but not necessarily limited to: aquaculture, buoys, mining, bank stabilization, channel modifications, culverts, dams, levees, ditches, fishways, moorage, outfall structures, etc... — Above and underground utilities — Water supply — Wastewater disposal — Stormwater management facilities — Non-native landscaping The level of detail needed for these descriptions will vary according to the nature, scope, and scale of projects, and their locations relative to ESA -listed species and their potential habitats. Assessments should include as much information as is needed to adequately describe and estimate potential environmental effects. In some cases there may be little or no potential for adverse effects, therefore in those cases it may require relatively less information and discussion to document potential effects. Project details, stream courses, and any key floodplain features need to be mapped, including showing those features on the project area map(s) (Task 1.2) and being able to see how they relate to stream conditions appearing on the habitat area map(s) (Task 2.5). There should also be a description of- - Any ongoing activities that will be conducted at the site after construction is complete. — Any ongoing activities that will affect adjacent areas, including, but not necessarily limited to, as an increase in traffic, an increase in stormwater runoff from the site, increased noise, and changes air quality, etc... 3.2. Construction Process At a minimum, this section should cover the following points: Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 24 — August 2013 — Land clearance (areas to be cleared and native vegetation that will be removed). — Any work in water, including a description of the methods and materials used. — Grading and filling. — Stormwater management measures taken during construction. — Utility installation (including any on -site wastewater treatment). — Methods and techniques for construction of structures, including buildings, roads, bridges, paved areas, retaining walls, shoreline modifications, and types of equipment. — Construction phasing and anticipated construction timing. — Mobilization and staging plans. — Temporary construction access and staging areas. Maps and a timeline are needed to show where and when each activity will occur. 3.3. Protection Measures There are several federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for developments to include measures that avoid, minimize, replace, or compensate for negative effects on populations or habitat functions due to project impacts. The applicant may initiate additional measures. The habitat assessment must list those measures, and clarify which are required, and which are recommended. All required and recommended measures should be described. They could include, but are not necessarily limited to the examples below: — Preserving a setback area from any disturbances, or any other measures that avoid negative impacts to ESA -listed species or'their habitats. — Drainage/erosion control plan during construction. — Post -construction stormwater and erosion control plans. — Use of low impact development techniques (which may eliminate or reduce runoff from areas to be developed). — Any other measures that minimize negative impacts to ESA -listed species or their habitats. — Actions to implement wetland mitigation plans. — Any other measures proposed to reduce potential negative impacts during or after construction is complete, such as sedimentation basins, should be included and described as part of the project design and included in the project timeline. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 25 — August 2013 — Compensatory storage provisions to replace lost floodplain storages that are able to demonstrate that they will not potentially strand fish. — Any other forms of on -site or off -site compensation for degradation to habitat functions that support ESA -listed species. — A description of any adaptive management program that will be utilized. This should include, but not necessarily be limited to, a description of what the monitoring that will would be conducted to track both implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures, what would trigger adaptive measures, what those measures would be, and what method will be used to determine if they are sufficient and successful. Adaptive management refers to a structured, iterative process intended to enable decision making under conditions that include some uncertainty. The goal is to reduce that uncertainty over time by monitoring project site conditions before, during, and after construction, as well as the effectiveness of project design elements and mitigation measures. Possible components of an adaptive management plan include, but are not necessarily limited to the following topics: ■ Monitoring and resultant possible changes in project management (e.g. variations to mitigation measures) are based on spatial and temporal scales of analysis that are appropriate for the project in question, and the basis for those scales is explained. This includes the location(s), duration, and frequency of monitoring. • The variables selected for monitoring are appropriate and practical to track project impacts, and the effectiveness of best management practices and mitigation measures. ■ Monitoring results can and will be used in a direct way to decide what, if any, changes need to be made to achieve the desired future condition for the project. For many projects the desired future condition (dfc) is obvious and can easily be stated. In some more complex projects the minimum parameters needed to adequately define the dfc will need to be determined. • Adaptive changes to the project are based on existing best management practices and best available science to the greatest extent possible 1 Compensatory floodplain storage requirements are included in Section 7.6 of the Model Ordinance. This section requires that compensatory storage areas must be graded and vegetated to allow fish passage during flood events without creating fish stranding sites. Areas of compensatory flood storage should be designed to create floodplain habitat whenever feasible. Compensatory storage should not be used in areas prone to avulsions because lowering floodplain elevations or digging pits in these areas may increase the probability of an avulsion. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 26 — August 2013 Step 4. Assess the Environmental Effects The habitat assessment must analyze the direct and indirect effects of the action on ESA -listed species and their aquatic, riparian, and floodplain habitat areas identified in Step 2, as well as the cumulative effects of future actions that are reasonably certain to occur. Primary factors to be considered in the assessment include, but are not necessarily limited to: — The proximity of the action to the species present, management units, or designated critical habitat units. This includes assessing the likelihood of measurable or observable impacts to fish or their critical habitats based on the relative location(s) of the action and nearby populations and habitats. As an example, habitats located well downstream of an action that is expected to deliver significant volumes of sediment to upstream reaches may still be measurably impacted if those sediments may are routed (transported) downstream to areas of concern. The appropriate temporal and spatial scales of analysis will vary by the variables of concern and nature of the project, and must be described in the assessment. — The distribution of an action over one or more action areas and sub -watersheds, This will give a spatial perspective for any accumulated impacts due to impacts in multiple locations due to the project proposal, and/or cumulative effects due to the combined impact of lingering effects of the project proposal added to the effects of other nearby, reasonably for -seeable future, non-federal actions. — The timing of the proposed action, and any resulting negative impacts relative to sensitive periods of the lifecycles of any potentially impacted ESA -listed species. — The nature, scale, scope, and duration of the effects of the proposed action on: the sub - population size; growth and survival; life cycle, diversity, and isolation; and genetic integrity of ESA -listed species that could potentially be impacted. Assessments should include as much information as is needed to adequately estimate potential effects to these population variables. In some cases there may be little or no potential for adverse effects to these variables, so relatively little discussion will be needed. — The nature, scale, scope, and duration of the effects of the proposed action on the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of any listed critical habitat, including any direct, indirect, interdependent, interrelated, or cumulative effects. In freshwater systems these PCEs essentially require: adequate water quality, water quantity, and substrate (free of fine sediments) for spawning, incubation, and larval development; adequate water quality and floodplain connectivity for rearing; and stream channels free of man-made obstructions (due to physical, water temperature, or chemical barriers). Again, the assessments should include as much information as is needed to adequately estimate potential effects to these habitat variables. In some cases there may be little or no potential for adverse effects to these variables, so relatively little discussion will be needed. — There are three potential categories of effect on critical habitat that relate to the duration of the effect: 1) a short-term events where effects reduce to negligible levels soon after construction activities cease; 2) actions that may result in sustained long-term negative effects that are measurable or observable after the proposed action is completed; and 3) actions that cause permanent changes, resulting in a new threshold (condition) for some Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 27 — August 2013 population or habitat functions of an a ESA -listed species and/or its critical habitat. `Short-term' effects will never persist more than one year (e.g. removal of native vegetation due to construction that is replaced within one year), and in the case of significant inputs of sediment or pollutants, may not persist for more than a few hours to a few days at most. — The frequency of any negative impacts due to the proposed action, described as the mean number of events per an appropriate time basis for the proposed action. This rate must then be compared against best available data on the estimated recovery rates of any potentially affected species to assess how those species would likely be impacted by multiple disturbances (if such occurs). The duration of each event may vary. A recurring event of short duration will in some cases result in a smaller net impact than one event of a much longer duration, but the opposite may also be true depending on the nature of the perturbation. — The severity of any negative effects to ESA -listed fish or their critical habitats that may potentially occur due to the actions of the proposed project. In this context severity is not analogous to intensity or scale, but it is closely related. A severe disturbance infers that affected fish would take a longer time to recover, due to the both the intensity of effects, as well as the effects of the other variables described above. 4.1. Types of Environmental Effects The References section at the end of this document lists resources that have additional guidance for the assessment of environmental effects. Direct effects: According to the ESA rules and regulations, direct effects occur at or very close to the time of the action itself. Examples include, but are not limited to: construction noise disturbance, loss of habitat, or sedimentation that results from the construction activity. Direct effects include the effects of interrelated actions. Such actions are part of the proposed action, and depend on the proposed action for their justification. Direct effects also include interdependent actions, which are activities that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Neither interdependent nor interrelated actions would occur `but for' the implementation of the proposed action. The discussion of direct effects must include information on the temporal and spatial limits of the effects, species tolerances, severity of effect, mortality and other forms of take (including harm), and expected habitat loss as a result of the proposed action. Identification of the appropriate estimated temporal and spatial scales of potential impacts are key to assessing environmental consequences. It is recommended that a table or list of appropriate scales for each pertinent issue (e.g. possible erosion and delivery of sediments to stream channels, water pollutants, changes in instream or riparian habitat, changes in hydraulics, etc...) be created to document appropriate scales of analysis for the nature and location of the proposed action. Habitat assessments only need to address those habitat functions and processes that they have the potential to affect, while also explaining (as briefly as is practicable) why those are the only functions that may be impacted. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 28 — August 2013 The direct impacts a project might have on a habitat area include, but are not limited to: — Permanent clearing and grading of any habitat area. — Temporary clearing and grading of any habitat area during construction. — Permanent structures, pavements, etc., constructed within or placed within a habitat area. — Modification of a stream channel or side channel, including bank stabilization measures and removal or changes to large woody debris (other than stream restoration efforts). — Diversion of water that will change the hydrologic or sediment regime in the project action area. Indirect effects: Indirect effects are also caused by or result from the proposed action; however they are likely to occur later in time. They may occur outside of the area directly affected by the action. Indirect impacts include, but are not limited to: — Disrupting high or low stream flows, including impacts from stormwater runoff. — Contributing to sedimentation that fills in substrate. — Blocking a corridor that connects habitat areas. — Increases in water temperature, or degradation of chemical or biologic water quality parameters through removal of riparian vegetation or other actions. — Disturbance of riparian vegetation (for example, clearing vegetation to the edge of a forested riparian area). — Moving or removing large woody debris. — Destabilizing banks, or altering natural lateral or vertical channel migration or channel forming processes. — Degrading wetland areas through disturbance of adjacent vegetation or modification of hydrology. Cumulative effects: Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cumulative effects include the lingering effects of past and current actions (as depicted in the environmental baseline) that overlap in time and space with the proposed action, as well as estimates of the effects of future state, federal, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. Cumulative effects under the ESA differ, however, from this definition. Under the ESA cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the project action area. The distinction is that under the ESA federal actions (i.e. actions permitted or partially funded by one or more federal agencies) are not part of the assessment, nor are any past projects. Project assessment can't be segmented under either NEPA or EIS. The entire scope of the direct, indirect, interdependent, and interrelated actions must be considered, including any possible lingering effects that may overlap with other reasonably foreseeable projects that could result in cumulative effects in the area(s) defined for analysis. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 29 — August 2013 Permit officials are required to review the cumulative effects of all projects when the proposed action has the potential to produce any measurable or observable negative effects. The cumulative effects section can't simply be a list of other projects. It must in some manner describe the estimated accumulated impacts of future projects that are reasonably certain to occur, superimposed upon the baseline of current conditions. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 30 — August 2013 4.2 Report Format There is no single required format for a NFIP habitat assessment, but such assessments must contain sufficient information and analysis to be able to fully describe the impacts of the proposed action on ESA -listed species and their habitats. Similarly, in Washington State neither the NMFS nor USFWS (jointly often referred to as the `Services') requires a specific format that biological assessments must follow. The main reference that the Services refer to, and recommend applicants fully comply with, is the Consultation Handbook (NMFS, USFWS 1998). http://www.nmfs.noaa,gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa section? handbook.pdf It's a large document that includes chapters and appendices that stress the contents (versus format) needed in a biological assessment, along with examples of such assessments. There are, however, also a number of examples of formats that are sometimes employed by various agencies that may be helpful for jurisdictions to refer to that can supplement the recommendations in this guidance. One useful reference that describes suggested contents and format for a biological assessment is titled "Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations" (National Marine Fisheries Service) is available at: http://scro.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/BA wide comboeha81105.pdf Another format that is often used in the Pacific Northwest is the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS 1996 and USFWS 1998). This approach assesses both the current condition and the estimated effect of the proposed action on 18 `indicators' of population and habitat conditions that fall under six broader `pathway' categories. This approach is useful because it breaks down the assessment into a repeatable, manageable number of specific topics. The NMFSS version can be found at: htt://www.nwr.noaa. oy/ ublications/reference documents/esa refs/matrix 1996.12df. The only significant difference between the NMFS and USFWS versions is that the suggested thresholds that constitute what defines when the current conditions of an indicator is `properly functioning', `at risk', or `not properly functioning' varies between NMFS and USFWS. The narrative for the matrices emphasize that these specific threshold metrics do not need to be used, and can be replaced by other metrics that are more appropriate for the watershed in question if the deviation can be explained. The outline below is a variation on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Biological Assessment Template guidance regarding how to describe the effects of a proposed action in a biological assessment. It is included in the Endangered Species Section of USACE Permit Guidebook online resource at: http://www.nws. usace.a_rmy.mi l/M issions/Civil Works/Regulatoo2ermitGu idebook.aspx Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 31 — August 2013 The components of this USACE outline must be covered in some manner, but the format may vary. A. Direct effects 1. First primary constituent element (e.g., freshwater spawning sitesz). 2. Second primary constituent element (e.g., freshwater rearing sites). 3. Third primary constituent element (e.g., freshwater migration corridors). 4. Essential Fish Habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 5. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. 6. Vegetation communities and habitat structures. 7. Water quality. 8. Water quantity, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities. 9. The channel's planform pattern and migration processes. 10. Spawning substrate, if applicable. 11. Floodplain refugia, if applicable. B. Indirect effects - see the list on the previous pages of this document and include consideration of indirect effects to items A.I through A.11, above, that are applicable to the proposed project. C. Effects from interdependent and interrelated actions D. Cumulative Effects E. Effects determinations — see following section. F. Summary 4.3. Effects Determination An effects determination needs to be made for each project action analysis area. In most cases there will only be one analysis area. The spatial scale of the analysis area will be dependent on the nature, scope, and extent of the proposed actions that are being assessed. The analysis area for an individual project site maybe as small as a stream reach, while a project with multiple related sites may be assessed at a sub -watershed (e.g. 6ch-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)) or watershed (Skfield HUC) scale. In every case the rationale for the spatial scale of analysis must be explained. The current (baseline) habitat conditions and the effects of the proposed action on ESA -listed species and their designated critical habitats must be described for the entire analysis area. Determinations for individual analysis areas could be utilized to make an overall project effect determination if there are more than one analysis areas for multiple interrelated or interdependent project actions. For example, if the effects determination for all areas is No Effect (NE), then the 2 Primary constituent elements are key habitat components for ESA listed species as specified in the Federal Register at the time of critical habitat designation for listed species. See the discussion earlier in this guidance for further information. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 32 — August 2013 overall determination for the project proposal would be No Effect. If, however, actions at some locations would result in a determination of No Effect, while related project actions in other areas would result in a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA), the overall call for the project would be NLAA since it represents the determination with the most potential for negative impact to species or habitat. In the prior example the overall determination would be NLAA. In the same manner, if the determination for one or more analysis areas is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) some ESA -listed species or their designated critical habitat, then the overall call is LAA, even if the determination for other interconnected or interrelated projects is NLAA or NE. It is critical to document how the effects determinations were reached. If the assessment concludes that the determination for the overall project is LAA due to project actions occurring within the Protected Area, the project will not be covered under the existing NMFS BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound. In these cases the project must either redesigned to avoid those adverse effects or the project must be dropped, or the proponent may seek ESA coverage via separate consultation under Section 4(d), 7, or 10 of the ESA. NMFS, USFWS, and the USACE use the following effects determination criteria. This language which should be used for habitat assessments: — No Effect (NE): the project has no effect, whatsoever, to the listed species or designated critical habitat. — May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA): any negative effects to the listed species or designated critical habitat are insignificant and/or discountable. A determination of NLAA would also be made for those activities that have only a beneficial effect with no short- or long-term adverse effects. — Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA): the effects of the project will result in short -or long- term adverse effects on the identified species or designated habitat area. There are two key words within the definition of a NLAA determination —`insignificant' and `discountable'. "Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impacts and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely likely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: 1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects, or 2) expect discountable effects to occur" (NMFS 1998). Any projects that may result in adverse impacts that are more than insignificant and/or discountable would result in overall effects determination of LAA. If the effects determination is NLAA, the report should indicate what steps were taken to avoid and minimize any negative project impacts. For example, the permit applicant could time certain construction work to occur when the species are not present in the project area. 4.4. If avoidance and minimization measures do not eliminate the potential for long-term adverse effects due to actions outside of the Protected Area and riparian buffer zone, the project cannot proceed as designed. In those cases additional replacement and/or compensatory measures need to be included in the mitigation plan (see steps 5 — 6) in order Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 33 — August 2013 to result in a net, long-term neutral or beneficial impact to ESA -listed species and their critical habitats. Assessment Report If the assessment concludes No Effect (NE) or May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) the report should be prepared and submitted to the community's permit office. For NLAA determinations that include avoidance and minimization measures, the assessment must include enough detail to show how the measures are related to potential project impacts. The assessment report must include all the information needed to support the effects determination and the rationale for reaching the conclusion(s). It could be organized to follow Steps 1 — 4 as outlined in this document. The level of detail should be commensurate with the level of anticipated impacts. Projects with significant impacts or potential for significant impacts (due to project type and/or project location) require more detailed review and analysis. If the assessment makes a determination of Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) or NLAA the assessment will need to proceed to Step 5. Preparing the Mitigation Plan The following sections (Steps 5 and 6) provide guidance on preparing a mitigation plan, including reference to any other pertinent habitat -specific restoration and mitigation guidance materials developed for the area under consideration. The final objective of floodplain habitat mitigation is to ensure that there is no adverse effect to quality or quantity of natural habitat functions and processes within the Protected Area (with the limited exemptions for each area listed earlier in this guidance). Step 6, Task 6.1 of this guidance provides additional recommendations on mitigation objectives, including specific requirements for mitigation within riparian buffer zones the Protected Areas, as well as beyond those areas throughout the remainder of FEMA's Regulatory Floodplain (i.e. the 100-year floodplain). For many development proposals, permit conditions and mitigation actions required to meet other local and state permit requirements may also provide mitigation for the impacts determined through Step 4 of this guidance. In such instances, permit conditions and mitigation actions may overlap to serve as mitigation for impacts to floodplain habitats as required by the local floodplain management ordinance. The conditions and mitigation proposed, however, must be sufficient to mitigate for all floodplain habitat impacts in order to meet the objective of no adverse effect to habitat. Step 5. Review Mitigation Alternatives (Mitigation Sequencing) There are four major types of alternative mitigation approaches to rectify an adverse effect. In descending order of preference and effectiveness they are: avoidance, minimization, rectification (replacement), and compensation. This mitigation sequence hierarchy directs that those impacts that can't be avoided must be minimized, and impacts that remain after taking steps to minimize Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 34 — August 2013 shall be restored and/or compensated for to the fullest extent practicable. On -site, in -kind compensation is preferred over off -site and/or out -of -kind compensation. The necessity for use of the latter must be explained and justified. Successful mitigation is dependent upon adequate monitoring of both the actual (versus planned) implementation of mitigation measures, and the effectiveness of those measures to accomplish the stated objectives in the Mitigation Plan (see Step 6 below). The results of that monitoring may trigger adaptive management to accomplish those goals. Applicants in the Puget Sound Basin need to be aware that, with the limited exceptions described earlier in this guidance, that no short- or long-term adverse effects to ESA -listed species or their designated critical habitats are allowed to occur within the Protected Area. This means that for any project type that is not listed as an exemption, that the only viable mitigation option within the Protected Area is avoidance of adverse effects. Projects that would result in an adverse effect over any temporal scale must either be redesigned to avoid those effects or the project is not compliant with the NFIP BO. Proponents could also seek separate ESA consultation under section 4(d), 7, or 10 of the ESA. Beyond (outside) of the Protected Area any adverse effect must be fully mitigated to the extent practicable. Beyond the Protected Area all of the measures within the mitigation sequence are available, and the proponent must demonstrate how each one was used. 5.1. Avoidance Avoidance is the preferred approach. FEMA recommends that new land development actions remain outside of the Regulatory Floodplain. Avoidance prevents additional adverse effects on aquatic and riparian habitats, while also precluding any risks to public safety and property from possible increased frequencies, durations, or magnitudes of flooding that would result from further development in the Regulatory Floodplain. Avoidance also largely eliminates the need and expense of mitigating any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian habitat. The permit applicant should strongly consider relocating or redesigning the proposed project to avoid impacts on floodplain habitat functions, and the need for a mitigation plan. Communities should consider incentives to encourage permit applicants to avoid the Regulatory Floodplain. Many communities currently use many strategies to encourage conservation of key areas by allowing for development, at a more intense level in other areas. These are usually provisions of a zoning ordinance or separate development regulations. Here are three approaches that some jurisdictions use to encourage conservation: 1. Providing density incentives to individual property owners: A density incentive or density credit system would allow specified land uses to occur at a more intense level within a portion of a parcel outside of the floodplain as compensation for conservation of flood -prone areas within the parcel. For example, if a 20-acre parcel is zoned for one acre lots and half of the parcel is in the Regulatory Floodplain, the community might consider allowing the ten "dry" acres to be developed with half acre lots, allowing the development to still construct 20 homes. This would allow for a higher density of development in a portion of the property and would require the remaining, high habitat value floodplain to be conserved as a dedicated tract. This strategy is similar to clustering development methods, such as is often used in planned unit developments. Under both Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 35 — August 2013 approaches, the overall project does not exceed the development density allowed by the zoning district. 2. Transferable development rights: Transferable development rights (TDR) systems have been in limited use by certain jurisdictions within the Puget Sound region in recent years. TDR systems allow for the transfer of development density from one parcel of land (with some conservation value, such as a floodplain or wetland) to another parcel or area that is planned for higher density development. Implementation and administration of TDR systems has proven challenging in many circumstances, due to the required coordination in establishing density receiving and density giving areas, and in negotiating density credit values. However, a community, regional, or watershed -based TDR system may be a successful strategy for floodplain avoidance. 3. Tax relief for conservation lands: Tax relief is a financial incentive that has proven to discourage development of sensitive lands. As an example, King County, Washington has an established system of providing property tax relief for lands that are established as conservation areas. All projects must meet certain criteria and approval is not automatic. Such a system could provide an additional venue to encourage conservation of floodplain lands. 5.2. Minimization If the entire project cannot avoid some development within the Regulatory Floodplain, it may be possible that it can be designed to minimize the physical area and magnitude of impacts on aquatic and riparian functions by preventing development in identified high value habitat areas, and/or by changing the construction design of the projects. For example, while water access may be necessary for some projects (namely those that are inherently water dependent), the design might place most buildings and pavements out of the riparian habitat zone. Here are some ideas for this approach: — Site the project footprint away from the higher value habitat areas. — Designate buffer areas that are not disturbed during or after construction. Note that Section 7.4 of the Model Ordinance option in Puget Sound prohibits removing vegetation (other than noxious weeds) in the riparian habitat zone without mitigation. — Include vegetation measures around the site's. active use areas. Many adverse effects are due to degradation of natural processes or functions caused by actions during the construction period. Some best management practices to avoid these types of problems include, but are not necessarily limited to: — Perform all work in dry weather and/or during the dry season. — Incorporate erosion and sedimentation control measures. — Use vegetable oil -based hydraulic fluids in all equipment working in water. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 36 — August 2013 — Prepare and train crews on a spill prevention and pollution control plan, and require that all equipment needed to contain a possible spill is available on -site before construction activities begin. — Store, stage, and refuel equipment outside the riparian habitat zone. — Inspect equipment daily for leaks. — Time specific phases of work to occur during "species work windows," when the species are not present or will not be affected. 5.3. Replacement of Degraded Habitats A project's plans must, to the extent practicable, include provisions to replace (rectify) those habitat functions that were degraded by project actions. The baseline is the condition of the site immediately prior to the proposed action, not historic conditions at the site. As an example, wetlands, channels, and riparian areas can potentially be repaired or rebuilt after the land clearance, grading and filling is concluded. All areas temporarily cleared should be re -vegetated with native plants. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 37 — August 2013 In some cases, incorporation of avoidance, minimization, and replacement actions may have a net result of maintaining or even improving natural habitat functions and processes relative to pre -project conditions. The box to the right provides an example, where conditions in a stream in Jefferson County, Washington were improved by replacing a culvert with a bridge of adequate span. 5.4. Compensation When conducted in concert with avoidance and minimization measures, replacement actions may mitigate for some habitat degradation at the site of the proposed actions. In those cases where complete (or nearly complete) replacement of habitat is not practicable, compensation is the next action in the mitigation sequence that should be considered. Compensation varies from in -kind, on -site compensatory actions, to off -site, out -of -kind actions. If the action literally restores the specific functions that were degraded at the same location that they were impacted, that form of compensation is synonymous with replacement. This type of compensation if preferred. When it is not possible, off -site and/or out -of -kind compensation should be conducted when practicable. Compensation measures should account for the habitat functions and elements identified in Step 2. Some functions, such as a freshwater migration corridor, are not possible to adequately compensate via actions at other locations. Off -site, out - of -kind measures are least preferred; when they are used applicants need to explain why they are the only viable form of compensation for the project proposal, and how they would provide adequate mitigation. The applicant should also keep in mind that the area required for constructed compensatory habitat is generally greater than the area of impact because of the length of time it takes to successfully create a properly functioning stream side channel, wetland, or upland floodplain habitat area that provides similar quality and quantity of the affected habitat functions (see the Auburn Narrows compensation example, next page). 5.5. Select the Best Approach(s) Selecting the best mitigation approaches for the proposed project is an iterative process. It should consider avoidance as the preferred choice. If work must be done in a sensitive area, it should consider the costs of restoration and compensation. If those costs are too high, avoidance should be reconsidered. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 38 — August 2013 Selecting the best mitigation approach should be done in conjunction with the local, state, and federal regulatory offices for technical assistance regarding the discussion of preliminary project designs and assessment of environmental effects. Assistance from these sources, as well as possible review and assistance from neighboring tribal representatives, can greatly aid in designing the appropriate sequence of mitigation of actions. Early and periodic meetings with appropriate regulatory agencies will increase the likelihood that the mitigation plan will meet all regulatory requirements, and can reduce total project costs and the probability of possible schedule delays during the approval process. Step 6. Prepare the Mitigation Plan 6.1. Objective As noted in Step 5, the objective of the plan is to assure that actions are taken to sufficiently and appropriately mitigate for negative impacts to ESA -listed populations and the natural functions and processes that support their habitats. The mitigation plan document needs to be of sufficient Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 39 — August 2013 detail to demonstrate how this is done, using avoidance, minimization, replacement (rectify), and/or compensatory measures. Options for mitigation under the BO for the NFIP in Puget Sound differ for those impacts occurring within the Protected Area versus those impacts occurring outside of the Protected Area, but still within the remainder of the Regulatory Floodplain. Within the Protected Area no short- or long-term adverse effects are allowed, hence avoidance is the only viable mitigation measure. If adverse effects would occur, the project must either redesigned to avoid those adverse effects or the project must be dropped, or the proponent may seek ESA coverage via separate consultation under Section 4(d), 7, or 10 of the ESA. Outside of the Protected Area, but still within the remainder of the Regulatory Floodplain, minimization, replacement, and compensation measures are also available as methods to mitigate for any adverse effects. The long-term net result must be neutral or beneficial for ESA -listed species and their critical habitats. Examples of some options available include, but are not limited to: — Doubling, tripling, or further increasing the area of compensatory mitigation to offset the difference in quality and function of the lost habitat versus the constructed habitat (thereby increasing the mitigation ratio of area of habitat impacts to area of compensatory mitigation provided). — Identifying additional areas of previously degraded habitat within the project area and developing and implementing a plan to restore them. — Implementing restoration actions which are targeted as a high priority by an adopted and approved species recovery plan, when such actions are identified within the same 5th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) or Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) watershed as the proposed action, and approved by local, state, and federal permitting agencies. — Adopting a plan that would adaptively manage, if necessary, to adjust the mitigation plan based on the results of monitoring both the implementation and effectiveness of the planned mitigation measures. This plan would establish metrics for the mitigation plan (e.g. replanting success rates after a set period of time) to assure that any adverse effects from actions outside of the Protected Area are minimized to the fullest extent practicable. For all mitigation, the final plan (construction level detail) should not be drafted until the local permitting office(s) in coordination with state and federal agencies, as necessary, has agreed that the conceptual mitigation plan would meet the objective. Coordination with local permitting officers will ensure that the scope of the planned mitigation will be commensurate with the scale of the impacts, and will meet the objectives identified above. 6.2. Format Many communities have established formats that they have long used to document mitigation plans within environmental or biological assessments. These formats are likely adequate for purposes of the NFIP. One option is to refer to Chapter 2 of Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans [www ecy.wa.govlbib]io/0b06011b.html , which has detailed guidelines regarding what to include in a mitigation plan. There is a recommended Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 40 — August 2013 outline in Appendix C of that publication which is geared to larger projects involving complex habitat impacts and mitigation. Smaller, less complex projects involving very limited impacts may not require all the information in the outline because it may not be relevant or applicable. Here is an example mitigation plan outline: 1. Introduction, background, etc... 2. The project area, with map (taken from Step 1 of the assessment) 3. The project area's habitat, with map (taken from Step 2 of the assessment) 4. Project description (taken from Step 3 of the assessment) 5. Impact on habitat (taken from Step 4 of the assessment) 6. Alternatives considered (taken from Step 5, this should note why some alternatives, especially avoidance, were not selected) 7. Mitigation concept (an overall explanation of the measures) 8. Construction measures a. Grading plan, with existing and post -construction topographical maps b. Construction methods (e.g. equipment to be used) c. Construction schedule 9. Permanent measures a. Surface water management b. Vegetation plan c. Permanent buffer areas d. Etc. 10. Post -construction monitoring and maintenance plan 11. Bond arrangements 6.3. Minimum Standards At a minimum, the mitigation plan's components 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the outline above should be consistent with the mitigation guidance requirements of the Seattle District of the Corps of Engineers and Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (see Reference section). They must also be consistent with the community's critical areas regulations. If there are inconsistencies between these requirements, the standards that provide the highest level of environmental protection and the greatest likelihood of mitigation success take precedence. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 41 — August 2013 Reviewing Habitat Assessments and Mitigation Plans This section provides guidance for the local permit official. The following strategies may be used to ensure that habitat assessments and mitigation plans are prepared by a qualified individual or company, and meet the intent of the Model Ordinance and this guidance. Establishing a List of Qualified Consul- tants: The community could provide a list of qualified consultants to developers and land owners who have experience in the area. Another strategy for ensuring that qualified consultants are used could include developing qualification criteria for authors of habitat assessments and mitigation plans; see the box to the right for an example of one community's criteria. Public Comment Period: After habitat assessments and mitigation plans are submitted, the permitting official may require a public comment period before assessment conclusions and/or mitigation Example Qualification Criteria The following criteria could be used by a community as part (likely not all) of the minimal criteria needed to conduct habitat assessment to ensure assessments and mitigation plans are prepared by a qualified consultant: Reports and plans shall be prepared by persons who have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in wildlife or fisheries habitat biology, or a related degree in a biological field from an accredited college or university with a minimum of four years experience as a practicing fish or wildlife habitat biologist plans are approved. This approach could include a requirement that a public notice be posted in a publication of record. The intent of the public comment period would be to ensure that interested third parties would have ample opportunity to review and comment on proposed projects. This could alert the local permit official to issues or impacts not adequately addressed by an assessment or mitigation plan. Third Party Review: The community may establish a system of third party review(s) by qualified consultants or agencies. Third party review is frequently implemented by local jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region for other environmental permits and approvals. The cost of third party review could be passed on to the applicant. This may require establishment of a third party review system in the ordinance. Establishing a system of third party review could augment internal review within the local jurisdiction. Another option for certain jurisdictions could be formalizing a system of internal review where qualified staff would determine the adequacy of submittal materials. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 42 — August 2013 Review Checklists: Permit staff could develop a review checklist for assessment and mitigation plan submittals. A checklist would likely need to be tailored to specific types of development activity due to the site- and habitat - specific nature of habitat assessments and mitigation plans. References and Resources Federal and State Regulations and Guidance Checklist for the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion for the NFIP in Puget Sound - National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act, FEMA Region 10. httR://www.fema.gov/nfip-and-endangered-species-act Compliance Options for the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion for the NFIP in Puget Sound - National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act, FEMA Region 10. httg:llwww.fema.&gv/nfip:and-endangered-species-act CRS Credit for Habitat Protection, FEMA, 2010. http:Iltraining.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CRS1 Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998. htti)://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-librarypdf/esa section? handbook.pdf Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation — Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document, Puget Sound Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, September 22, 2008. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Implementation of the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion for the NFIP in Puget Sound.- National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act, FEMA Region 10. http://www.fema.gov/nfiD-and-endangered-species-act Mitigation guidance and DARPA permit information, Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. http:llwww.nws.usacc.aMy.mil/PublieMenti/Menu.cfm?sitename=REG&pagenatn Forms Model Ordiance for the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion for the NFIP in Puget Sound. -National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act, FEMA Region 10. hgp://www.fema.gQv/nfp-and-endan e� ra ed-species-act National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Requirements A Study Guide & Desk Reference for Local Officials, FEMA 480, 2005. www.fema.gov/librag/viewRecord.do?id=1443, Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations, National Marine Fisheries Service. httn:Hsero.nmfs.noaa.2ovlur/ndf/BA guide comboeli081105.ndf Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 43 — August 2013 Maps and Databases Critical habitat maps: — National Marine Fisheries Service: htt :Ilwww.nmfs.noaa. ovl rls ecieslcriticaihabitat.htm — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: htt :Ilcriticalhabitat.fws. ovI Forest Water Typing System, Washington Department of Natural Resources. www.dnr_wa. ov/BusinessPermitsll'o ics/ForestPracticesA iicationslPa esl ware in .as x A Framework for Delineating Channel Migration Zones. Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Transportation, Ecology Publication # 03-06-027, 2003. htt :Ilwww.ec .wa. ovlbib1ia10306027.htrrii National Wetland Inventory maps for the Puget Sound Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. htt :Ilwww.fws. ov/wetIandsl Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hia 1phsl ist.htm Washington Natural Heritage Database, Washington Department of Natural Resources. htt:Ilwww.dnr.wa. ovlResearch5ciencelTo icsll+laturaIHerita e1Pa eslam nh.as x Washington State Sail Survey data, see the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service maps or online Web Soil Survey, htt :Ilwebsoilsurve .nres.usda, ovla IRegional Guidance for Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies in Support of the Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act, FEMA Region I0, 2010. www.fema. ovlaboutlre ionslre ionxlNFiP ESA/ h droly icandh draulicstudies. df Water Quality and Quantity How to Meet Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit Requirements: A Guide for Construction Sites, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2008. httR://www&qy.wa.pgov/biblio/9937.html Standards for freshwater surface water quality in Washington State, Department of Ecology. htt :Ilwww.ec .wa. ovl ro ramslw Isw sl�riteria.html Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2005. htt:Ilwww.ec .wa. avl ro ramslw Istvrmwaterlmanual.htmI Washington State Water Quality Assessment, Washington State Department of Ecology. h :Ilwww.ec .wa. ovl ry ramslw 1303d120081index.html Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 44 — August 2013 Water level data: — U.S. Geological Survey: htt :Ilwa.water.us s. ovldatal — Washington Department of Ecology: htt :Ilwww.ec .wa. ovl ro ramslea Iflowlshu main-html Mitigation Engineering with Nature — Alternative Techniques to Riprap Bank Stabilization, FEMA Region 1, ered-lae�oodplain and riparian corridors: Washington of Fish a Wildlife (Bolton and Shelberg, 2001 htt :Ilwdfw.wa. ovlhablah floodri .htm Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook, US Fish &. Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, 1996. MR:Ilwww.fwL. ov/endan ered/hc l book.html Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planners Guide to Salmonid Protection and Recovery, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Department of Ecology, 2009. htt :Ilwdfw.wa. ovlhabitatl lanners idelindex.html Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2008. htt s:llfortress.wa. vvlec 1 ublicationslsumma A4 Dres/0806018.htmi Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1997. htt :Ilwdtfw.wa. ov/hab/ri xsu ..htm Protection and Restoration of the Ne arwore Ecosystems ts�eao�orgthral Puget rtsh nd c Partnership, 2)� w��r�a Puget Ncarshortm Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004. htt :Ilwdfw.wa. ovlhablah shr index.htm Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans, Washington Department of Ecology, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. htt :Ilwww.ec .wa. ovlbiblio10606011b.html Additional References Invasive species information: Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. htt :Ilwww.nwcb.wa. ovlweed list/weed list.htm Low Impact Development, Puget Sound Partnership. www. s .wa. ovlstormwater. h Landscape Planning for Washington's Wildlife: Managing far Biodiversity of Developing Areas, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. htt :Ilwdiw.wa. ovlhabl hsrecs.htm Habitat Assessment and Mitigation — 45 — August 2013 +124 FEET +14.6 FEET OHW OBSERVED ORDINARY HIGH WATER +16.4 FEET HIGH WATER { NEW ROCK MARK +11.8 FEET BULKHEAD MHHW ti HIGH HIGH WATER MARK NEW WHERE DISTURBED, ' BULKHEAD PLACE JUTE FABRIC EXISTING OBSERVED WITH NATIVE PLANTS < 48D' BULKHEAD 1460' HIZ GH WATER BACKFILLONLY ~� ' — — 12A4, OHW QUARRY SPALL OR SHOT S n 8r MHHW ROCK OF THE SAME 5 \ QUALITY /: :% f;. ,� ti/. •....: , TYPICAL ROCK BULKHEAD a r NEW STAIR BULKHEAD +124 FEET +11.8 FEET _ f NEW ROCK 330• OHW MHHW ••"_... ••^}.• SEIEGT FLAT SURFACE R KS FOR STAIR TREADS Ii BULKHEAD ORDINARY HIGH HIGH tNSTALI IN CH GRAVEL C,rl BACTC FlLL PROVEDE EQUAL RISE AND RUN AT TREADS. 12' MIN. TREAD HIGH WATER WATER '' �• 7 DEPTH, RISERS NOT TO EXCEED T HIGH. r - MARK MARK -. LANDING, \ LANDIN NEW 1700"_• _ ►"r.��ti L'• BULKHEAD .� :•�$. PARTOFALUM. 16.Ad _ '� �•4�.•-, =-• ':•� ".ia 67 HIGH _ .r EXISTING OBSERVED- .•%f STAIR SYSTEM y_ r / IY' xd BD BULKHEAD 14.60' HIGH WATER BACKFILL' 2#A OHW MHHW ROCK LANDING, - :r '�1f`\\• ��'l •. LEADS TO ROCK STAIRS BEYOND EXISTING GRADE BULKHEAD & LANDING STAIRS AT BEACH 2 v4• = V-D• o z r e 3 1/4' = V-0. r r rrr � TYPICAL slrAi6. .. • AWTERIAL OUAN_71T OUIREO" . _ _._- - - _ _-. __ _ _. _- .__ . -_. _ - _ FISER{77 '4T MAX. HE 4.65' BEACH TO NEW TOE BACKFILL: 48 CY -- _ . x4' O QUARRY SPACES: 20 CY - PATTERN 34 " "-__ """NI! 1 RIhC L'()JfjQL�R$,�„l -• •• y6'TO4rLLMATAARYSPALLS: _2D CY IN ICA 70FALFtLl MATERW.S= f+e LET - _ _ -•��r +max';.. r.. %.��3; .'�::�::' \ BULKHEAD PLAN EXTENT OF BEACH STABILIZATION AREA litt4" LANDIING DIRECTION IRECCI OIRETILlN OF TRAVEL RAVEL T, '•.yT''• j' �• PEI:��REE d's � - yf , • w.uww' „ OF f y TYP. STAIR CROSS SECTION a r 4 12" = 1'4r E4: C!13 'TREE M HIGH IE JE OF Fj IIMTO SLOPE ACE JUTE NS PER ING PLAN +12.4 FEET +14.6 FEET "• OHW OBSERVED ORDINARY HIGH WATER +16.4 FEET HIGH WATER NEW ROCK MARK +11.8 FEET BULKHEAD MHHW HIGH HIGH ` WATER f MARNEW WHERE DISTURBED, 16-da BULKHEAD PLACE JUTE FABRIC % EXISTING OBSERVED WITH NATIVE PLANTS - 14-W BULKHEAD 14W HIGH WATER BACKFILL ONLY �+ r" 12µ. OHW QUARRY SPALL OR SHOT 1161. MHHW ROCK OF THE SAME : ,\��\�.i•' . " QUALITY ,; TYPICAL ROCK BULKHEAD 4 1 1/4. = -0. . HEW STAIg _ +16.4 FEET NEW ROCK BULKHEAD •� LANDING 17.00, LANDING, --� PARTOFALUM. STAIR SYSTEM +124 FEET +11.8 FEET x3o" oHW MFIM pRarHARY HIGH HIGH HIGH WATER WATER MARK MARK NEW 16.aa' BULKHEAD EXISTING OBSERVED BULKHEAD 1469 HIGH WATER .. SELECT PLAT AC9WKS FOR STAIR TRIO-4 INSTALL IH EEACH RAVE�>KSLL PROVIDE EQUALRISEAND RUNATTREADS. 12' MIN TREAD DEPTH, RISERS NOT TO EXCEED r HIGH. Y.00•' • • - 4 .416AO' OBSERVED -.. g:ea-H�wA—R BACKFILL 1z44' OHW �,. 1�l' h�FyW F ^.� ROCK LANDING, •// l LEADS TO ROCK ,t h STAIRS BEYOND EXISTING GRADE BULKHEAD & LANDING STAIRS AT BEACH r r 1/4' = V-D" e r 3 1/4• = 1,-0. max• _ - _" ` - - _- __ ,- .__".""_. _`__ "__ ..__-�""�-.�,.� _" ___._' T TYPICAi $7A -' 1r - - -SIZED RISERS Wr EA. .� �r •'x~ ROUGHAREAOF WORK: 530 SF. - - '^ - MAX HT: 4.65 BEACH TO NEW TOE _ 7 EXYENTOF BEA<'MSTABR,WIIONFFEA yy OOIRECTPON OF in ; ,'.."� •/ (TYP. STAIR CROSS SECTIONg r 4 1/2' _ OHW QRO1 ` YHHW HIGH RiAKA UM IE 4E OF 1M SLOPE LACE JUTE NS PER PING PLAN K Lu F_ Q W a u LU a W F_ LU N LLI J (n a wLL, U z U am a = 0 U Qm x W m M N O Ib O) Q Q J W 0 W LL N 0 Q 0 m z Z 0 d 2 a 0 O O r` v gvLI�HEAn PLAN wawd �Lj V >cn �� rxC7xy fpyb m IC 00 �} � tv cn n m 0 c��az a� cYb'� c�0 z z pro � ad � N N I-+ rr I--�+ �-+ I--r.►-• F-+ .•D OC �] Ct Vi W N +Otippp�]TCH �W N �O ��onn�dr�2n��a`vyn�oo�oo C�,z�2y7��nD�o��cyxca�m�►C 2�C) ra�Zn�x��r�"����N�n �oaza >m xrn;r�� TKO rr�or�y��y� o��� ri7�rd�C m 2 = 9 NRCEn a�,�n r>���� c�n>> rri 0�`o C° t7� Ro rn m f 7 xrx� ��� v ell, I e"',eew le ell.,12 P eel ee7777777 qVI I I I I rdl-,N'A'nO?%' DATA NGVD 29 (Fl) IIIUNV (Fr) XIHMV 5,49 lls MI]w 4.61 10.8 m MW .6.52 0 war: LFGSMD VFGLTATr,D AREA OHW hU4HW (11.8 FI) 'MI4\w(I()sjT NOTO 1. -UPLAND AREA NOT SURVMT-D 2- DATIAI: AiLLNV 3. SLOPF VEGETATED WITH NATfVF $Pr.CTF-% INCLUDING DOLIGIAS FIR, X%7FSrFRN HEMLOCK, BIG LEAF ------ NIAPLEAND It M-AII)IERO%.rFR q BL-AKM, IIAZOINUT, OCEANSPRAY. SWORD FERN, Flit liWI'KD. THBIBLEDERRY, SALA], AND A!WRTED GRASSES. INVASIVE m )'CANT SPECILS INCLUDE ENGUSH < TRECIABEL& TR"7 Jfl & #2 O"OPNAINIEN"IAl. < TREE #3 = 14" CLDAR m GROUP#I: :2E (3) 12"44- HENUDCKS (5) 12--1 W FIRS GROUP #2 (6) 12--20- FIRS (3)10'42-14MII.00KS GROUP43 (2)14'-16' FIRS (5) 10-46- HEMLOCKS GKOUP#4 (9) 10--20" lmxmocics GROUP #3 (1) 18. FIR (6) W-16" HFNIIJOCKS > > > 0 tY 7. :z r) C) t z ar r*y L-> �N=> m o > N w o n p 5 < O m O p >c IN a_ 'k D p N C S O <~ m m r m _T T m R m < m m 0 Up N 3 KA� sm m� '• �' "'m mwm�D u,y wo M',m i i °x o c�i N o Nm' ADD Otmii m0 D_m a ± K nSpOD~� C �rvry Z yD'� z2 < Zy ZODA D D • 4 D -O Z my K 2Z Ntail p am� ^' nN+,�3 n C pN fm,l � y n� m y T y T i0 z4-IDp u > yy ~T� > `m > C N D O mz, �r o$ oa>_ mo N Ty Z Di !fyrm tit `o� ------ - cn - - ---- --- — -------------- - .' - ---- Ir zu- d tz � m {' r7 i kr§ - i; ) - } 2 ! §;@ / = ,e x k|� - q( Z )\\ ) « \ 00 §, k§ \ ® �> }( � � O m ;■ �, _}! -� -- »/ _ > ( -o ( L - , 7! §§ >"7, - y ` mO m 2 > m FF §; m O O .^ !2 ktv 1-3 M � - �- � m !;@ � / D 2 2 � � 2 $ 0-10 FT DISTURBEDrmZ 1 o � w Y M1 `v Zz Nor m = m r' . ri O O C, 1 w Cj _ �} =- p A z n e rb r rt r ? ^'ys N fC 2 ID 0. •J 0. N f+ ✓ `d o °, � O P `d I m M b o o z �r� yxy oboo lu t -� a C nd r z=� dzc oz ov -ri� za rom a� Cam" d ro 0 N Cori rr: o z z LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM U&POW& ,IGEOMOWL-41UVAq TO: Janet Shull, City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development FROM: Theresa Turpin, AICP DATE: October 9, 2013 revised November 13, 2013 RE: REVISED - THIRD -PARTY REVIEW OF THE PALISADES (ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT) RETREAT CENTER BULKHEAD AND STAIR REPLACEMENT FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This revised review is for the shoreline improvements proposed at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way, Washington. As part of this review and as requested by the client, a separate letter which is attached to this document, was prepared by Edward Heavey, P.E., a licensed geotechnical engineer, providing additional geotechnical review on the revised proposal (geotechnical review). These activities will occur within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The required shoreline permit approvals from the City of Federal Way are: • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit — To replace a 45 foot (ft) wood/creosote bulkhead (hard armoring) with a new rock bulkhead of 190 ft in length (45 ft would constitute replacement, 145 ft is considered new bulkhead). — Construction work will most likely require dredgelfill waterward of Ordinary High Water (OHM) along some areas of the shoreline; the dredgetrll work is part of the Conditional Use Permit. • Shoreline Variance — To allow the rock bulkhead to exceed the bulkhead height requirement of the allowed 1 ft above Mean Higher High Water (MHHW). — To allow those sections of the hard armoring that may extend waterward of OHW, a location variance is requested for the 190 ft of hard armoring. ■ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Construct new soft shore stabilization of 220 ft in length — Repair and replace a portion of the existing stairs damaged in recent storm events; the stairway location will have a minor relocation due to the recent slide. Documents provided for the review of the project proposal were: 1. Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair, prepared by Yeager Associates, August 2012 (Yeager Associates report). Revised July 2013. 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 i Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com 2. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs, prepared by Soundview Consultants, August 2012 (Soundview Consultants report) and Joint Aquatics Resource Permit Application (JARPA). Revised July 2013. 3. Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration, prepared by GeoResources, July 2012. (GeoResources report). Revised July 2013. 4. Email communication from David Pater and Hugh Shipman of Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to the City of Federal Way on June 7, 2013. The reports were reviewed for conformance with the provisions of the following Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15, "Shoreline Management": • Section 15.05.040, "General Development Standards" • Section 15.05.050(1), "Shoreline Modifications" for the proposed bulkhead • Section 15.05.160, "Shoreline Variance" for the additional height of the proposed bulkhead • Section 15.05.170, "Shoreline Conditional Use Permits" for the project being consistent with the required criteria. Additional information on Federal Way Shorelines was obtained from the Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson 2007). This document was prepared as part of the Shoreline Master Program process. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ADJACENT LAND USE The ABRC property is located on approximately 36 acres west of Dumas Bay on Puget Sound in Federal Way, Washington and is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. The site address is 4700 Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington. The King County parcel numbers are 112103-9010 and 112103-9029. The zoning for the site is Suburban Estates (Low Density Residential 1 DU/5 acres) and those areas within 200 ft of the ordinary high water (OHW) are designated as Shoreline - Urban Conservancy. The site is surrounded by mostly single family dwellings and the property west of the site is owned by the Boy Scouts of America. The main ABRC structures are all outside the Urban Conservancy shoreline district and have been in place for over 50 years. The main structure, a retreat center, is set back about 75 ft from the top of the slope and an existing fire lane is between the retreat center and the top of the slope. According to the 2012 GeoResources report, page 6, the fire lane is setback about 140 ft from the limits of a historic slope failure and is approximately 15 ft from the top of the slope. A trail and stairway lead to the beach from the top of the slope. The stairs at the base of the slope are unsupported due to the recent slide. Beyond the slide area the shoreline bank is unarmored, vegetated, and from observations from the 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES site visit (November 2, 2012), the shoreline is in a natural state. The site's shoreline extends over 700 ft along a predominantly north facing slope. Information from the provided reports indicate the OHW was determined to be at elevation 12.4 ft, with the MHHW at elevation 11.8 ft and the maximum observed high tide elevation 14.6 ft (Section 2.4 Soundview Consultants report). The property and surrounding area is described in the Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson 2007). The ABRC is west of Dumas Bay, and east of Dash Point State Park. Based on the report, the ABRC is in an area called Puget Sound West. Page 21 of the report provides background material on armoring of steep slopes in Puget Sound and Federal Way: "Of all the impacts of shore armoring in the Puget Sound area, sediment impoundment is probably the most significant negative impact (PSAT 2003, Pilkey 1988). Structures such as bulkheads, if functioning correctly, "lock up" bluff material that would otherwise be supplied to the shore drift system. This results in a decrease in the quantity of drift sediment available for maintenance of down -drift beaches. The negative impact of sediment impoundment is most pronounced when armoring occurs along a feeder bluff with a high sediment yield such as the bluffs approximately one-half mile east of Adelaide and in the western portion of the study area, just east of Dash Point State Park (Johannessen et al 2005, Macdonald et al. 1994). Additionally, the extent of cumulative impacts from several long runs of bulkheads is a subject of great debate in the coastal research and management communities. A comparison of current and historical bluff conditions in King County documented that prior to modifications 49.5 percent of Federal Way shores were comprised of feeder bluffs (sediment sources). When compared with current conditions (3 7percent), this represents a 25.2 percent loss of the total historic sediment sources in the Federal Way nearshore (Johannessen et al., 2005). As the bluffs in the study area continue to gradually recede, there will likely be an increasing desire for homeowners to build bulkheads. This would lead to further sediment impoundment and further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches would become "starved, " resulting in a reduction of the beach width and habitat degradation (Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse -grained (Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This would likely negatively impact forage fish spawning and other habitat values of county beaches (Rice 2006)." Page 72 of the same report, adds discussion including the project proposal area: "Several feeder bluffs in Puget Sound West were identified for conservation. These include all mapped feeder bluffs in Dash Point State Park, and most of the feeder bluffs mapped along the north and northwestern sides of the headlands just west of Dumas Bay Park". 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU iissOCIATES 73): The following mitigation recommendations are made in the ESA Adolfson report (pages 72 and "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead ■ Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Information from the ESA Adolfson report indicates the proposed project area is along a feeder bluff in Puget Sound West and recommends conserving the unarmored shorelines in the proposed project vicinity. The project proposal is for the repair and/or replacement of the stairway and former bulkhead located on the property within the shoreline district. FWRC designates all saltwater shorelines within the City of Federal Way as critical habitat for salmonids. The project proposal area is within the shoreline and therefore, within critical habitat for salmonids. The Geologic Hazards Assessment report prepared by GeoResources (2012) states that based on their site observations and evaluation, a landslide hazard, erosion hazard area, and steep slopes areas exist on or within 25 ft of the site (pages 5,6). The 2012 Geologic Hazards Assessment report on page 6 states the project proposal is not within a seismic hazard area. NEED FOR THE PROJECT The beach access stairway has been destabilized by landslide activity and the loss of the existing 45 ft bulkhead. The central portion of the shoreline bank has slumped, allowing tall trees to fall onto the beach. Currently, the existing bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the OHW elevation and therefore, is not providing protection at the toe of the slope. This has caused creosote treated pilings to fail and move apart from each other allowing high tidal and wave action to erode material from behind the bulkhead. This tidal and wave action has caused failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The project, as proposed, is to provide a combination of hard and soft armoring to protect the site. The proposed improvements (Yeager Associates 2012) are intended to: 1. Maintain the water -enjoyment use of the property 2. Provide safe beach access 3. Stabilize the steep slope and soft sediments near the stairway to maintain stairway stability in the future 11/13/13 Y1238\0620MMABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 4. Provide additional protection to upslope facilities by stabilizing the remainder of the shoreline 5. Protect existing beach habitat and critical environmental processes to the maximum extent possible while fulfilling the need for the project 6. Restore compromised intertidal habitat by removing debris, such as the creosote pile bulkhead. SHORELINE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS Project Description The site was established in 1956 and according to the Yelp, Inc. website (2012) the main structure celebrated 50 years of service in 2007. The previous bulkhead which was 45 ft in length and 14.8 ft in elevation (page 4, Soundview Consultants report 2012) recently failed. It is unclear how long the stairs and bulkhead were in place prior to failing. The project proposal is to reconfigure and replace the stairs and provide shoreline stabilization by using a combination of hard and soft armoring to provide beach access. The applicant is proposing to increase both the length and height of the former bulkhead. The previous bulkhead length was approximately 45 ft and covered approximately 7 percent of the site. The project proposal is providing 410 ft of hard and soft armoring; therefore, the project proposal is providing shoreline stabilization for approximately 57 percent of this undeveloped shoreline. Hard armoring is proposed to extend 190 ft along the shoreline at elevation 16.4 ft, adding an additional 145 ft of hard armoring in length from the previously existing bulkhead. Soft armoring is proposed for the remaining 220 ft of vegetated shoreline area. The project hard armors 26 percent of the shoreline and soft armors 31 percent of currently vegetated shoreline. The project proposal, as presented in all of the reports, will add 1.6 ft in height above the previously existing bulkhead. The height of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (Soundview Consultants 2012). The 2012 GeoResources report, page 8, recommends the hard armoring to extend 4 ft above OHW or elevation 16.4 ft. The regulatory requirements allowing rock bulkheads state the height cannot be higher than 1 ft above the MHHW elevation (11.8 ft), or a maximum of elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed bulkhead height is proposed to be 16.4 ft, which is 3.6 ft higher than what is allowed under the FWRC. FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE ANALYSIS Applicable Regulations of the FWRC are 15.05.040; 15.05.050; 15.05.160; and 15.05.170. In the reports prepared for the ABRC, the consultants have provided a review of the project proposal in relation to portions of the FWRC and the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The revised project is 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 5 providing armoring of a natural shoreline. Therefore, to fully discuss the proposed project, this document addresses each section of the related FWRC and all applicable sections of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. 15.05.040 General development standards The following general development standards apply to all uses and activities in all shoreline environments: (1) Impact mitigation. (a) To the extent the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SETA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SETA (FWRC 14.05.01 a and Chapter 197-11 WAC). Mitigation for adverse impacts to shoreline functions will be triggered during the SEPA review, shoreline land use permit process, or exemption approval process. The project proposal incorporates mitigation measures (page 5 and Appendix B7 of the Soundview Consultants report) by providing beach cleanup, removal of creosote pilings, and the remnants of an old barge left on the beach. (b) Where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order ofpriority. (i) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Repairing the stairs and replacing the previous 45-ft bulkhead requires some impact to maintain access to the beach; therefore, the impact cannot be completely avoided. (ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; The project site is over 700 ft of mostly vegetated shoreline. The hard and soft armoring is shown as being installed landward of the OHW. Per the Ecology email and based on information in the 2013 Yeager Report, the placement of the hard armoring will be waterward of OHW in some places. Per the GeoResources report, page 6, the project proposal is replacing 45-ft of piling bulkhead with 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 feet of soft armoring. Per the reports, the armoring will provide protection of the shoreline area and is planned to extend past the fire lane that wraps around the complex, to the east portion of the site (2013 GeoResources page 2 and 3). The project proposal is to add 145 ft of hard armoring, is significantly less than the original proposal. However, the revised proposal increases the shoreline hard armoring over three times of what previously existed. To further protect the shoreline from erosion, GeoResources recommends providing up to 220 ft of soft armoring along the natural shoreline. Additionally, the Soundview Consultants report states the 220 ft of soft armoring is to provide future protection to the upland structures including the fire lane. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the ABRC is west of Dumas Bay and in an area called Puget Sound West. This report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. The revised 2013 proposal does minimize impacts. 11/13/13 Y1236\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAu ASSOCIATES 6 However, the Ecology comments point out the proposed soft armoring would not necessarily prevent continued slides on the upper slopes. (iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; The Soundview Consultants report Section 5.1.4 states the mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the following mitigation recommendations are made: "Puget Sound West: ■ Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay ■ Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Since the proposed mitigation complies with the last five bullets, the mitigation meets the requirement for repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; There is no discussion of ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the results of the armoring. Per the 2013 Soundview Consultants report, section 5.1.4, the mitigation will restore some of the natural sediment transport functions; however, there is still no discussion regarding ongoing monitoring or ongoing maintenance after the work is completed. (v) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and The mitigation (Soundview Consultants report, section 5.1.4 and Appendix C sheet 4 of 5) will enhance the shoreline area and environment by removing creosote pilings, and debris embedded in the beach including tires and decaying barge, to provide compensation. (vi) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. The report provides for best management practices (BMPs) during project construction which should minimize construction impacts (2013 Soundview Consultants, Chapter 6); however, there is no ongoing monitoring of the shoreline impact proposed in the reports provided. The revised reports do not provide any discussion regarding ongoing monitoring or maintenance. (c) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. 11/13/13 Y1238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 7 According to the ESA Adolfson report, the following mitigation recommendations are made: "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay ■ Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Therefore, the proposed mitigation is tailored to specific recommendations for this shoreline. (d) Required mitigation shall not be in excess of that necessary to assure that proposed uses or development will result in no net loss ofshoreline ecological functions. Based on the proposed mitigation and the shoreline inventory and characterization (ESA Adolfson report) the project proposal mitigation is not in excess. However, due to the changing from 7 percent of armored shoreline to the proposed armoring of over 50 percent of a natural shoreline, the mitigation may not assure the proposed armoring results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The 2012 Soundview Consultants report, Section 5.1.4 states: "No net loss of ecological functions are anticipated. " The mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. The 2012 GeoResources report, at the bottom of page 7 states, "The rock bulkhead will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe of slope. " Reducing erosion constitutes a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Based on information from the ESA Adolfson report, the project proposal is located in an area where there are known feeder slopes and the recommendations include conserving these unarmored shoreline areas. The shoreline was formerly 7 percent armored. Restoring some sediment transport functions through mitigation may not fully compensate for the loss of material that will be created from hard and soft armoring over 50 percent of a vegetated shoreline. The proposed mitigation is not in excess of that necessary, but may not fully compensate for the loss of shoreline ecological functions. (e) Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the Shoreline Management Act. The mitigation action to remove beach debris does not have an adverse impact on other shoreline functions. (fl When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and are located in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation may be authorized if said mitigation occurs within the watershed and addresses limiting factors or 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES identified critical needs for shoreline conservation based on watershed or comprehensive management plops. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms, or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The proposed mitigation is located in the immediate project proposal vicinity. (2) Vegetation conservation. Existing shoreline vegetation shall be preserved per development standards established for each shoreline environment designation. Shifting the stairway to avoid the recent slide area will result in some vegetation loss; however, that loss will be replanted thus, at the stairway vegetation removal is the minimum size necessary. The applicant has provided a planting plan for the site, including the hard and soft armoring areas. See Appendix C, sheet 5 of 5 in the Soundview Consultants report. (3) Water qualitylstormwater. All activities and development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall incorporate water pollution control measures and best management practices Pes) for stormwater management. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to water quality from construction activities as well as the need for permanent stormwater management facilities in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of all applicable city and state regulations. The 2013 Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 6, page 20, provides recommendations for appropriate BMPS for construction of stormwater management. Per the 2013 GeoResources report, page 12, the proposed hard armoring is a rock wall with free -draining backfiil material allowing water to flow off the rock wall. The project proposal will be constructed in a naturally vegetated area which currently allows for water to sheet flow off the slope to the beach. The stairway, like a trail or sidewalk, is a non -pollution generating surface, needle piling is proposed for the replacement which provides support with minimal disturbance; therefore, the project proposal will comply with all stormwater requirements. (4) Critical areas. Activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.1O FWRC, Critical Areas, and Chapter 15.15 FWRC, Flood Damage Prevention, for each area described below. (a) Any conflict between the standards outlined in Chapter LLN or 15.l5 FWRC and the SMP shall be resolved in favor of the standard that is most protective of the shoreline ecological functions. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapters I5.10 and 15.15 FWRC, the fallowing minimum requirements shall apply with regard to activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) Minimum setbacks from the OHWM established by this chapter shall be maintained in all cases unless a shoreline variance is granted. The proposed armoring is shown landward of OHW which would meet the setback as required by the shoreline code. However, the Ecology discussion and the 2013 Yeager report page 4 states the potential for portions of the hard armoring to be located waterward of OHW. It is understandable in this environment that it would be challenging, if not impossible, based on the toe of slope and the OHW, to keep all construction of the hard armoring landward of OHW. Therefore, the till required to support the base of the hard armoring should be considered as part of the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit along with a location variance (as addressed in the 2013 Yeager Report) to allow the hard armoring to be waterward of OHW. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docu t_ANDAu ASSOCIATES (ii) When FWRC 15.10.270 (Structures, improvements, and clearing and grading within regulated wetland buffers), subsections (5) Wetland Buffer Reduction and (6) Modification, are utilized for a project proposal, a shoreline variance permit is required if the overall proposed buffer width reduction exceeds 25 percent. According to the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no wetlands were observed in the project proposal area. (b) Geologically hazardous areas. Regulated geologically hazardous areas located in the shoreline jurisdiction include seismic hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slopes, and erosion hazard areas. If a geologically hazardous area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, and IV of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC, the following shall apply with regard to activities and development in geologically hazardous areas found within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) Creation of new lots shall be prohibited where development and use on new lots would cause a foreseeable risk from geological conditions during the life of the development. Per the 2013 GeoResources report, page 7, the project proposal is within a steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard area; however, no new lots will be created as part of the project proposal. (ii) New development that causes riskfrom geological conditions should not be allowed. The project proposal is to repair and maintain the stairs and to provide shoreline armoring. The project proposal is proposing a solution to protect the site from geologic conditions such as landslides. (iii) New development on sites with steep slopes and bluffs is required to be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the project as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. A geotechnical review has been completed for the project proposal and while all work is proposed landward of the OHW, this may not be physically possible due to site conditions; however, the proposal is providing the appropriate setback under the FWRC. (c) Streams and wetlands. If a stream or wetland is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, V, and VI of Chapter 15.10 FRRC. As stated previously, per the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no wetlands or streams were observed in the project proposal area. 11/13/13 Y:\23M062-020\MABRC Shrreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 10 (d) Flood damage reduction. If an area of special flood hazard is located on or adjacent to a development site within shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC .411 activities allowed within the special flood hazard area by the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC shall not result in a net loss of ecological function. The project proposal is in a Flood Hazard Area according to the Soundview Consultants report, section 4.5. (e) Critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. Ifa critical aquifer recharge area or wellhead protection area is located within the shorelinejurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions ofArticles I, II, III, and VII of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. As stated previously in the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no Critical Aquifer Recharge areas were observed or known to be within the project proposal area. (5) Critical salmonid habitats. All salt water shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats. The project proposal is work along a saltwater shoreline which means it is within a critical salmonid habitat. Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the following development standards, in addition to those contained in other sections of this chapter: (a) Structures which prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead are prohibited Fish bypass facilities shall allow the upstream migration of adult fish. Fish bypass facilities shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. Project proposal work will be landward of OHW or, if encroaching into the OHW, the hard armoring will be as close to the landward OHW as is physically possible without damaging the wasting slope. Therefore, the project does not create structures that prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead. (b) Shoreline modification structures may intrude into critical salmonid habitats only where the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met: (i) An alternative alignment or location is not feasible; Since all saltwater shorelines are considered critical salmonid habitat, it is anticipated the interpretation of intruding into a critical salmonid habitat means work waterward of OHW. It would appear constructing the shoreline armoring landward of OHW or, if encroaching into the OHW, as close to the landward OHW as is physically possible based on site conditions, complies with this condition. (ii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; 11/13113 Y:\238\062.020\R%BRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 11 The project proposal is along the shoreline and the majority of inwater work proposed is the mitigation. Section 5.2, pages 14 and 15 of the 2013 Soundview Consultants report, states the minimum amount of hard armoring is being proposed to protect the existing uses. Based on Ecology comments and the 2013 Yeager Report, the proposed hard armoring will be located as close to the landward OHW as physically possible. According to all of the reports, the use of hard and soft armoring is designed to minimize impacts to the shoreline. However, based on the ESA Adolfson report, sections cited earlier in this document states: "...further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches would become "starved, " resulting in a reduction of the beach width and habitat degradation (Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse -grained (Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This would likely negatively impact forage fish spawning and other habitat values of county beaches (Rice 2006). " Based on the Landau Associates geotechnical review, page 3, hard armoring could be reduced between Stations (Sta.) 0+00 to 0+25 and between 1+25 and 1+90. Therefore, the project may not be designed to fully minimize impacts on the environment. (iii) If the project will create unavoidable adverse impacts, the impacts are mitigated by creating in -kind replacement habitat near the project. Where in -kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute; Per the Soundview Consultants report, the project proposal inwater work is the mitigation. This includes removing creosote pilings, a decaying barge structure, and other debris on the beach. It is anticipated this work will also restore some of the natural sediment transport functions. The mitigation does rehabilitate degraded habitat. (iv) The project satisfies all provisions ofFWRC 15.05.050. Shoreline modifications Analysis of FWRC 15.05.050 is below. Based on the Landau Associates geotechnical review of the site, the proposal does not meet all of the criteria in 15.0.050; specifically 15.05.0501. a. iii and vii. 15.05.050 General development standards (1)Shoreline stabilization may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment. Hard armoring (e.g., bulkheads and riprap) is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit in the urban conservancy environment. Soft -shore stabilization may be permitted in the urban conservancy environment. Shoreline stabilization proposals shall address the following: (a) Shoreline stabilization, including bulkheads, shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the city s shorelines. In order for shoreline stabilization to be permitted the city must find that: (i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified professional, that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and the urgency associated with the specific situation; and 11/13/13 Y:X238\062 020XR1ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm—rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 12 The applicant has provided a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional (2013 GeoResources). Page 9 of this report provides information based on their review of available shoreline photographs and observations, they estimate the rate of erosion to be 1 to 2 inches per year. Due to past slope failures, the estimate is 1 to 3 ft every 10 to 15 years. Alternatives evaluated in all of the reports included the no action alternative, soft armoring alternative, hard armoring alternative, and a combination of soft and hard armoring on the shoreline. (ii) Soft -shore stabilization alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization, gravel berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioritized over structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" effective alternative shall be utilized; and The only soft shore stabilization technique proposed is anchoring large woody debris with large boulders. The soft armoring, as proposed, does incorporate native vegetation. This is shown on the mitigation plan, Appendix C, sheet 4 of 5 in the 2012 Soundview Consultants report. NOTE: the revised 2013 Soundview Consultants report provided sheets 1, 2, and 3, of 4 sheets, however the JARPA revised application was provided and the plans appear to be the same as the original 2012 report. (iii) In the case ofproposed hard armoring stabilization solutions (e.g., bulkheads and riprap), erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to a legally established primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water -dependent development, ecological restoration/toxic clean-up remediation projects, or public improvements; and The geotechnical report page 3 agrees with the the 2013 GeoResources report stating the need to provide hard armoring between Sta. 0+25 and Sta. 1+25. However, the geotechnical review disagrees with the report stating there is a need to provide hard armoring between Sta. 1+25 through Sta. 1+90. As stated in the geotechnical review while a portion of the upper trail is directly upslope of this location it is unlikely that the erosion at the toe of the bluff will present a clear and imminent threat to that portion of the trail within 3 years. Additionally, based on the geotechnical review and the Ecology email, the 2013 GeoResources Report does not demonstrate that erosion at the toe of the bluff will present a threat to the fire lane. Therefore, based on the reports, the only clear and imminent danger is to the existing stairway which is an established shoreline use and was previously protected by the 45-ft bulkhead. (iv) In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilization is located landward of the ordinary high water mark,- and Based on information in the 2013 Yeager Report and the email from Ecology, the construction of the hard armoring (riprap) will be difficult to locate completely landward of the OHW. Therefore, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit should also address the fill that will be required for construction of the hard armoring and a shoreline location variance, which is discussed in the 2013 Yeager Report. Due to site constraints, specifically the toe of the slope, there is a physical challenge to all construction being completely landward of OHW and minimal encroachment into the OHW is a typical construction practice. (v) The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements; and 11/13/13 YA238062.02MMABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 13 It is important to note the area has been subject to erosion since it was constructed in the 1950s. It is unclear how long the 45-ft bulkhead protected the site. The upland site structures are all over 200 ft from OHW. The past armoring on the site equated to 7 percent of the shoreline. The GeoResources report has been revised to recommend a 190-ft linear rock wall (hard armoring) to protect the stairs. Based on the geotechnical review, this amount can still be reduced and is not the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements. (vi) The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment transport are minimized to the greatest extent possible; and The 2013 GeoResources report states the proposed hard armoring and soft shore stabilization will have minimal impact on the current sediment transport. Per their report since the site is located within divergent drift zone, sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment on the east and west sides of the shoreline stabilization. The site, according to the ESA Adolfson report, is also a feeder bluff. The 2013 GeoResources report states the soft shoreline stabilization will not completely stop toe erosion and sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment. The 2013 GeoResources report provides a conservative rate of erosion is estimated to be 1 inch to 2 inches per year. (vii) Shoreline stabilization shall not have an adverse impact on the property of others and shall be designed so as not to create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere; and The geotechnical review, on pages 2 and 3, discusses a concern regarding the area shown on the plans from Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+25. The concern is the abrupt change from hard armoring to no armoring which could cause accelerated erosion west of the bulkhead, adversely impacting the adjacent property. The geotechnical review recommends relocating the stairs. This relocation would eliminate the need of hard armoring between Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+25 and recommends soft armoring between Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+25 to minimize impacts to the adjacent property. (viii) Shoreline stabilization shall not significantly interfere with normal surface andlor subsurface drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using an approved filter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage ofsurface and groundwater without internal erosion offine material; and The 2012 GeoResources report, page 4 states: "Significant groundwater seepage was not observed in any of our exploration holes at the time of excavation. " Additionally, the 2012 Soundview Consultants report on page 16 states from the background research and the site visit, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of groundwater. (ix) Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and No new lands will be created by the project proposal. 11/13/13 YA236\062.020\RIABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 14 (x) Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline stabilization proposal within fresh water lake shorelines; and Work is not within any fresh water lake shorelines. (xi) Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and The project proposal is within the marine shoreline and will not use creosote treated wood. (xii) Revegetation with native plants is required as part of the shoreline stabilization project; and The mitigation proposed includes native plantings; see 2012 Soundview Consultants report, Appendix C, sheet 5 of 5. Additionally, disturbance to plants will be minimal. (xiii) Shoreline stabilization shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological functions. Per the 2013 GeoResources report, page 10, the project as proposed will not have an adverse impact on ecological functions. The proposed mitigation should help restore ecological functions according to the reports. There is no monitoring proposed to ensure that the decrease in sediment transport from the bulkhead does not adversely impact the beach. (b) When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection (1)(a) of this section, the following standards shall apply: (i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters, or one foot in height above the elevation of ordinary high water mark on lakes, measured from grade on the waterward side of the bulkhead or structure; and The Soundview Consultant report provides the NU HW at elevation 11.8 ft and the OHW at elevation 12.4 ft. Due to the maximum observed tidal height at elevation 14.6 ft, the height of the bulkhead is proposed elevation 16.4 ft. Therefore the proposed rock bulkhead will extend approximately 4 ft in height from the landward side of the OHW. Based on the FWRC, the maximum elevation of the hard armoring would be elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed rock wall height will be approximately 3.6 ft higher than allowed by the FWRC. (ii) When a bulkhead or other stabilization structure has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead or structure must be located at or landward of the ordinary high water mark. Based on information in all the reports, the construction of the hard and soft armoring and repair of the stairway will all be located at or landward of the OHW. Due to physical constraints on the site, the construction of the hard armoring may encroach into OHW. Per the 2013 Yeager report, the 11/13/13 Y:\23B\06ZD20\R\ABRCShcrelinereAew2synopsiscomm—rev.doa tANDAu AssOCIATES 15 applicant is requesting a location variance for those areas where the hard armoring or construction for the hard armoring will encroach waterward of OHW. (iii) Repair of an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is permitted provided that the repaired bulkhead or structure is not relocated further waterward or increased in height. As stated above, the new bulkhead will be increased in height. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. Therefore the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. (iv) If an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is made within one year of destruction. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. The previous bulkhead was a 45-ft long bulkhead with the top of the bulkhead at elevation 14.8 ft. The project proposal increases both the length and height of the previously existing bulkhead by proposing a 190-ft long bulkhead, with the top of the bulkhead at elevation 16.4 ft. The replacement, as proposed, is larger than the previously existing shoreline stabilization structure and should be considered a new shoreline structure. (v) Soft -shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The proposed soft shoreline stabilization measures are not intended to provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions; however, the proposed mitigation for the work should help to restore ecological functions. (vi) The project satisfies the provisions ofFWRC 15.65.040(5)(b). The revised proposal does minimize the impacts. However, the project proposal may not be in full compliance with 15.05.040 (5)(b)(ii) since it is questionable whether the revised proposal is the minimum size necessary to protect the stairs. The 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring based on the geotechnical review (pages 2 and 3) can be reduced and are not the minimum necessary to protect the site. Therefore, while the revised proposal does minimize impacts, it is not the minimum necessary. 15.05.160 Shoreline variance (1) The purpose of a shoreline variance is to grant relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the shoreline master program, where there is an extraordinary or unique circumstance relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the shoreline master 11/13/13 YA23M62 0201RIABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 16 program would impose unnecessary hardship on the applicant or thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (2) When a variance is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the variance, shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the final approval authorityfor the city of Federal Way. The Department of Ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) A variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply: (a) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; As stated above, the new bulkhead will be increased in height to provide protection of the stairs that provide access to the site shoreline. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC_ The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. This means that the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (b) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions; The hardship of limiting the bulkhead height is due to unique features on the site, including the historic landslide areas, steep slopes, and tidal wave actions, and is not a result of the applicant's own actions. The need for the higher bulkhead is to protect the replaced stairway which, once repaired, will restore access to the shoreline by those individuals staying at the retreat center. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. The hardship of limiting the bulkhead to the areas landward of OHW may be impossible in some areas due to the natural features on the site. (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Allowing the additional height to the bulkhead should be compatible with other permitted activities in the area, since the protection is needed to provide shoreline access and provide continued protection of the stairway accessing the site. The GeoResources report, page 7 states the project proposal will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\RWBRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 17 Since the height of the previous bulkhead [2-ft higher (elevation 14.8 ft) than the allowed height], was still over topped by tidal action, this overtopping by tidal action, most likely contributed to the previous bulkhead failure. Therefore, allowing the shoreline variance to increase in height of 3.6 ft above the allowed height to allow protection of the stairway to maintain shoreline access is not a grant of special privilege. Other properties in the area could be afforded the same relief to protect shoreline access. Based on site information; the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft and still failed; the maximum observed tide at the site was elevation 14.6 ft (Soundview Consultants report) which is above the allowed bulkhead height; and the recent Puget Sound "king tide" events, the 3.6 -ft height variance is the minimum necessary to protect the shoreline and provide relief for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. The location variance to allow construction to encroach into the OHW is a common construction practice, especially in areas where the OHW is adjacent to a steep slope. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The additional height does not interfere with the use of the shoreline; it provides and maintains access to the shoreline for the guests at the ABRC. The bulkhead will be landward of the OHW and based on the previous document discussion, the added height on the bulkhead should not cause a detrimental effect provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (9 That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and The project proposal for additional bulkhead height is mostly landward of the OHW; therefore, the additional height for the bulkhead will not impact the public rights of navigation of the public waterway. (g) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline. Since the maximum observed tide in the project area was elevation 14.6 ft and the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (2-ft higher than the elevation allowed by the F)VRC), and still failed, based on information in all the reports, the additional height is needed to protect the stairs. Alternatively, if the height variance was denied and the bulkhead was constructed at a lower height which, due to tidal action failed, the bulkhead and stair debris that would occur from this event could have an adverse effect on the shoreline. Granting the bulkhead height variance is consistent with shoreline policies by maintaining shoreline access, providing the improvement landward of OHW, and protecting the stairway access. Additionally, protection of the stairs prevents them from failing and falling onto the shoreline area and will prevent adverse effects on the shoreline, provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. The location variance to allow construction to encroach into the OHW is a common construction practice, especially in areas where the OHW is adjacent to a steep slope. 11/13/13 YA238\062.02M ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 18 (4) Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specif tally prohibited in an environment, or to vary uses permitted within an environmental designation. (Ord. No. 11-705, § 5 (Exh. B), 11-1-11) The shoreline variance is to provide additional height to the proposed bulkhead and supports an allowed use in the shoreline district. Allowing additional height on a bulkhead should be limited to a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. Based on the physical limitations of the site, the location variance to allow the bulkhead to encroach into OHW in areas where it is physically impossible to construct landward of OHW, should be allowed, provided the construction is as close as possible to the point landward of OHW. 15.05.170 Conditional uses (1) The purpose of the conditional use permit is to provide greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the shoreline master program in a manner which will be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW, particularly where denial of the application would thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (2) When a conditional use is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the conditional use, shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV,, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the. final approval authority for the city of Federal Wiry. The Department of Ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) Conditional uses have unique and special characteristics which require a special degree of control to make the uses compatible with other existing or permitted uses in the same environment, and to assure that the use is in the public interest. In authorizing a conditional use permit, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the hearing examiner to prevent undesirable effects or mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed use. (4) Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent with the following criteria: (a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the shoreline master program; The project proposal to provide a bulkhead which will provide protection to a stairway that allows access to the shoreline is consistent with the policies of the shoreline master program. The goals and policies of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are discussed in the Yeager Associates report. The main area of concern, as asserted in the code discussion above, is the amount of armoring proposed. The previous armoring was 7 percent of the shoreline while this project proposal is to armor over 50 percent of the shoreline. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the ABRC is west of Dumas Bay and in an area called Puget Sound West. The following recommendations are made in the report: "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead ■ Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles" 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\HBRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 19 According to the ESA Adolfson report, part of the required reviews in developing a Shoreline Master Plan supports the proposed mitigation; however, the report also recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. In-depth discussions on the goals and policies of the applicable sections. of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are below. (b) The use will not interfere with normal use ofpublic shorelines, - The project proposal is in an area that is not open to the public and all development work will occur landward of OHW or as close to the landward point as physically possible due to the site constraints and therefore, should not interfere with the normal use of the public shoreline. (c) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area, The GeoResources report, page 7, states the combination of hard and soft armoring will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. However, the geotechnical review does raise concerns on the proposed design affecting the adjacent property to the west, causing accelerated erosion on that property, see page 2 of the geotechnical review. (d) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect - Based on publications from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program: "Shorelines are dynamic, especially in drift zones where currents run in a particular direction and constantly move material along the beach. Disrupting the sediment supply can change the nature and composition of nearby beaches... " Furthermore, the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay (cited at the beginning of this document). Therefore, the public interest may suffer detrimental effects due to the armoring disrupting the sediment supply and changing the composition of nearby beaches, especially the nearby public shorelines. (e) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The site is located in a littoral drift zone (2013 GeoResources report, Figure 6). Based on publications from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program: "Shorelines are dynamic, especially in drift zones where currents run in a particular direction and constantly move material along the beach. Disrupting the sediment supply can change the nature and composition of nearby beaches... " The project proposal will be replacing 45 ft of hard armoring (7 percent of the total beach armored) and increasing it to 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring which will be armoring over 50 percent of the beach. Based on information and plans in the 2013 GeoResources report (page 9), the estimated rate of erosion is 1 inch to 2 inches per year. 11JI3113 YA236\062.020kR1ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 20 Given the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmed shorelines west of Dumas Bay (cited at the beginning of this document), a cumulative impact could occur if 50 percent of the adjacent shorelines are armored with a combination of soft and hard shoreline armoring. (5) Other uses not set forth in the shoreline master program may be authorized through a conditional use permit if the applicant can demonstrate that other uses are consistent with the purpose of the shoreline environmental designation and compatible with existing shoreline improvements, or that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property; however, uses specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. (Ord. No. 11-705, § 5 (Exh. B), I1-1-11) The use is authorized in the shoreline district. Goal SMPG1 Shoreline areas shall permit a variety of development types in accordance with the City's zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and Shoreline Master Plan (SAP) designations. Designs, densities, and locations for all allowed uses and developments should consider physical and natural features of the shoreline and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Policies SMPPI Shoreline land and water areas particularly suited for specific and appropriate uses should be designated and reserved for such uses. The project proposal is supporting the stairway to maintain shoreline access which is an appropriate shoreline use. SMPP2 Shoreline land and water uses should satisfy the economic, social, and physical needs of the regional population, but should not lead to a net loss of ecological functions in the shoreline areas. Based on the reports, it is not clear how changing from 7 percent of shoreline armoring to over 50 percent of shoreline armoring along a natural shoreline will not lead to a net loss of ecological functions. If the proposal is approved, monitoring of the site should be required to determine if the mitigation has restored ecological functions to compensate for the hard armoring impacts. SMPP3 Like or compatible shoreline uses should be clustered or distributed in a rational manner, rather than allowed to develop haphazardly. The project proposal is an existing use to support the retreat center next to property used by the Boy Scouts of America. SMPP4Multiple uses ofshoreline should be encouraged where location and integration ofcompatible uses or activities are feasible. The project proposal is being developed on a private shoreline that has operated as a retreat center for over 50 years. Due to the serene setting, the integration of compatible uses such as opening access across private property to the shoreline would not be compatible or feasible with the site use as a retreat center. 11/13/13 Y1236\062.020\RWBRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 21 SMPP5 Shoreline ecological functions should be protected from uses or activities that will have an adverse effect on them. Based on the ESA Adolfson report, the construction of 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring along a beach that was previously armored with a 45-ft bulkhead could create an adverse effect, especially since the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines within this project area. SMPP6Non-residential uses or activities that are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to locate or relocate away from the shoreline. The project proposal supports a shoreline dependent use. SMPP7Federal Way should consider the goals, objectives, and policies of the shoreline master program in all land use management decisions regarding the use or development of adjacent uplands where such use or development may have an adverse effect on designated shorelines. The project proposal is not developing the upland portion of the site, this does not apply. SMPP8 Development should be regulated accordingly in shoreline areas known to contain development hazards or which would adversely impact designated critical areas as identified in Title 15 of the FWRC. a. All development should be prohibited within the 100 year floodplain, except single-family residential and water -dependent or water -related uses. The project proposal to construct shoreline armoring and reconstruct the stairs providing access supports access to the shoreline, a water -dependent use. b. All development should be prohibited in shoreline areas of severe or very severe landslide hazard. The project proposal is for shoreline stabilization. According to the GeoResources report, the project proposal is proposed in a landslide hazard area. c. All development should be regulated in shoreline areas with slopes of 40 percent or greater. The GeoResources report on page 2 states the area has inclinations of greater than 60 percent. The project proposal is to provide additional protection to the stairway to protect access to the shoreline area. d. Shoreline areas containing other potential hazards (e.g., geological conditions, unstable subsurface conditions, erosion hazards, or groundwater or seepage problems) should be regulated as necessary to avoid unsafe development and disturbance ofsensitive areas. The project proposal is in an erosion hazard area according to the GeoResources report. The stabilization and reconstruction of the stairs is regulated under the FWRC. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.dacx LANDAU AssocIATES 22 SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing Shoreline Management Act requirements. The project proposal is on private property, the City of Federal Way is implementing the Shoreline Management Act Requirements through the FWRC. SMPG2 Residential use ofshoreline areas should be continued and encouraged in areas that have not been designated as Natural environments by the SMP, allowing a variety of housing types. New development or redevelopment of residential uses should cause no net loss ofshoreline ecological function as identified in the SMP's Shoreline Inventory Characterization and Analysis. The project proposal is not a residential development and the goals and policies of SMPG2 do not apply. SMPG3 Shoreline areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP to allow for commercial development shall permit a variety of commercial and office park development types. New development or expansion of existing commercial and office uses should result in no net loss ofshoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not expansion for commercial or office use, the goals and policies of SMPG3 do not apply. SMPG4 Regional and subregional utilityfacilities, including communications, (radio, TV, and telephone), energy distribution (petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity), water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers should not be allowed in shoreline areas unless there is no alternative location. Design, location, construction, and maintenance of utilityfacilities must comply with the requirements of SMP regulations and other federal, state, and local laws, and result in no net loss ofshoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not a regional or subregional utility facility, the goals and policies of SMPG4 do not apply. SMPG5 Limit shoreline stabilization — which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulkheading,. to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Policies SMPP31 Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. The project proposal is to replace the previously existing bulkhead that was 45 ft in length and 14.8 ft in height with a rock bulkhead that will be 190 ft in length and 1.6 ft higher (16.4 ft in height) with soft armoring that will extend an additional 220 ft in length. This is replacing 7 percent of shoreline stabilization on a natural shoreline zoned urban conservancy with just over 50 percent shoreline stabilization. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\RWBRCShaelinereview2synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAuASSOCIATES 23 SMPP32 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as bioengineering or soft -shore armoring would not be able to protect existing development. In Section 5 of the Soundview Consultants report, the soft armoring alternative discussion states that over a period of several years, the soft armoring would fail and the upland structures (the clubhouse is over 75 ft from the top of the slope) would be in danger. SMPP33 Planning of shoreline stabilization should encompass sizable stretches of lake or marine shorelines. This planning should consider off -site erosion, accretion, or flood damage that might occur as a result ofshoreline protection structures or activities. All of the reports state there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of the project proposal and the neighboring properties will not be impacted by the project proposal. However, the geotechnical review raises concerns to the adjacent property, the concern is the hard armoring, since it will end at the property line on the west side, has the potential to cause erosion on the adjacent property to the west. SMPP34 Shoreline stabilization on marine and lake shorelines should not be used as a means of creating new or newly developable land. The project proposal will not create new lands. SMPP35 Shoreline stabilization structures should allow passage ofground and surface waters into the main water body. The GeoResources report shows the design of the rock wall allowing water to move through the rocks to prevent hydrostatic pressures from building up behind the wall, allowing the passage of water into the main water body. The soft shoreline armoring proposed is anchored logs and would also allow passage of water into the main water body. SMPP36 Shoreline stabilization should not reduce the volume and storage capacity of streams and adjacent wetlands or flood plains. Project proposal is not in a wetland or stream. Project proposal is in a FSHA and adding the support rock may constitute fill in a flood plain. SMPP37 Whenever shoreline stabilization is needed, bioengineered alternatives such as natural berms and erosion control vegetation plans should be favored over hard surfaced structural alternatives such as concrete bulkheads and sheet piles. Per the Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 5, the only soft armoring alternative considered was the use of anchored logs. The report concluded that the use of soft armoring eventually would fail and place the structures at the top of the slope at risk. The Ecology email and the geotechnical review do not agree with the concept that the soft armoring will protect the structures at the top of the slope. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 24 SMPP38 The burden ofprooffor the need for shoreline stabilization to protect existing developments or proposed redevelopments rests on the applicant. The need for some shoreline stabilization is evident from the reports; however, based on the geotechnical review, the proposed 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring is still more than the minimum amount necessary to provide stabilization to protect the existing development. SMPP39 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or increased shoreline protection on the same or other affected properties where there has been no previous need for protection should not be allowed. The ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines in this area. Only 7 percent of the shoreline was armored in the past, the project proposal is to conduct shoreline stabilization activities on just over 50 percent of the site, where there has been no previous need for protection. Additionally, the geotechnical review on pages 2 and 3 discusses concerns at the west end of the site and the potential for impacting the adjacent property. SMPP40 New development shall be designed and located so as not to require shoreline stabilization. The stairway will be replaced in a different area due to a recent slide, but is still repair and maintenance. Pin piles will secure the stairway in place. The bulkhead is considered new development since it is both higher and longer than the shoreline stabilization that previously existed on the site. SMPP41 Areas ofsignificance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or residency of aquatic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in review ofproposed shoreline stabilization activities. The shoreline stabilization is placed landward of the OHW or as close to the landward portion of the OHW as if physically possible to minimize the impacts on critical salmonid habitat. SMPP42 Shoreline stabilization activities should be discouraged in areas where they would disrupt natural feeder bluffs processes important for maintaining beaches. The project proposal is to support the existing shoreline access; however the stabilization proposed is larger than previous stabilization on the site. The stairway access has been granted along this feeder bluff for over 50 years. SMPG6 Docks and moorages should be allowed when associated with residential, recreational, or other public facilities. The design, location, and construction of any dock, pier or moorage should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not a dock, moorage, or pier; the goals and policies of SMPG6 do not apply. SMPG7 Increase public access to and enjoyment of shoreline areas through improvements to physical access on publicly owned lands and improved visual access provided that private rights, public safety, and shoreline ecological functions remain intact. The project proposal is on private property and the goals and policies of the SMPG7 do not apply. 11/13/13 Y:1238\062.020XRW,BRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 25 SMPG8 Provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented recreation opportunities that are diverse, convenient, and adequate for the regional population, and that will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not on public land and is only open to regional population if they are a paying guest of the ABRC. The ABRC is proposing the project to maintain the guest's access to the shoreline; however, based on the goal to provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented uses adequate for the regional population, the goals and policies of SMPG8 do not apply to private property. SMPG9 Recreational experiences that depend on, or utilize, the shoreline (including: harvesting activities offish, shellfish, fowl, minerals, and driftwood, various forms of boating, swimming, and utilization of shoreline pathways; and watching or recording activities, such as photography, painting, or the viewing of water dependent activities) shall be encouraged within parks and other public access areas, given they do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and are allowed uses under state and local regulations. The project proposal is not a park or public property. The project proposal is on private property; the goals and policies of SMPG9 do not apply. SMPG10 Preserve and protect the ecological functions of intact natural shorelines and ecologically sensitive shorelines as outlined within the shoreline inventory and characterization. The project proposal does not comply with the recommendations of the ESA Adolfson report, page 21. The project proposal proposes to armor over 50 percent of a vegetated shoreline in an area where conserving unarmored shorelines is recommended. Policies SMPP68 Manage designated critical areas in the shoreline — such as critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, regulated wetlands, and streams — according to measures provided in this Shoreline Master Program. These include shoreline environment designations, allowed uses, development standards and regulations, and mitigation for unavoidable impacts. They should also be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 9, Natural Environment, of the Comprehensive Plan. There were no other critical areas observed on the site per the reports. SMPP69 Develop standards, buffers, and mitigation requirements for designated critical areas in the shoreline consistent with city-wide regulations. There were no other critical areas observed on the site per the reports. SMPG11 Assure preservation of unique and non-renewable natural resources and assure conservation of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations and the public interest. 11/13/13 YV361062.0201RWBRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU AssoCIATES 26 Policies SMPP70 All new development and activity in or adjacent to shoreline areas should be designed, constructed, and operated as to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality. Use of State and Local Best Management Practices and guidance should be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality. The project proposal reports, including the revised 2013 reports, provide information stating the project proposal will use BMPs and adverse impacts to ground or surface water is avoided. SMPP71 Shorelines that are of unique or valuable natural character should be considered for acquisition. Subsequent management of such areas should protect or enhance shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is on private property and the shoreline is an integral use of that property. Acquiring the property may not be feasible for many reasons. SMPP72 Protection and conservation of vegetation within shoreline areas should be managed through implementation of setback, clearing and grading, and mitigation standards for development activity. The project proposal will preserve vegetation and provide mitigation plantings. The rock wall and stair repair will be landward of OHW or as close as possible to landward of OHW, to meet the setback requirements. SMPP73 Resource conservation should be an integral part of shoreline planning. All future shoreline development should be planned, designed, and sited to minimize adverse impact upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. The project proposal is to construct landward of OHW, or as close as possible to landward of OHW to minimize the adverse impacts upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. The concern is the length of shoreline armoring proposed on this natural shoreline. SMPG12 Develop regional solutions with other jurisdictions, tribes, and interested parties to resolve the challenge ofprotecting shoreline ecological functions while also managing shoreline developments. The project proposal is on private property the goals and policies of SMPG12 do not apply. SMPG13 Pursue projects to restore and enhance shoreline habitats and processes on publicly owned lands. The project proposal is on private property the goals and policies of SMPG13 do not apply. SMPG14 Encourage voluntary restoration projects on private property in dcgraded shoreline environments. 11/13/13 Y:\238%062.020%RWBRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiswmm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 27 The project proposal is providing some bioengineering, but it is part of a regulatory process not a voluntary restoration process. The goals and policies of SMPGI 4 do not apply in this case. SMPG15 Provide ample opportunityfor the public to learn about the ecological aspects and community values of the City's shorelines. The project proposal is located on private property and the goals and policies of SMPG15 do not apply. SMPG16 Identify, protect, preserve, and restore important archaeological, historical, and cultural sites located in or associated with Federal Way's shorelines for scientific and educational purposes. The project proposal does not impact any archaeological, historical, or cultural resources sites according to the Archaeological and Cultural Resources Report (2012) and SMPG16 does not apply. SMPG17 Circulation systems in shoreline areas should be limited to those that are shoreline dependent or would serve shoreline dependent uses or those that must pass through shoreline areas. The environment shall be protected from any significant adverse effects of circulation systems required in shoreline areas. The project proposal is not a circulation system and the goals and policies of SMPG17 do not apply. CONCLUSIONS The FWRC is specific about what constitutes a clear and imminent threat (i.e., within 3 years) and requires proposals that are an increase over what previously existed to be viewed as a new project. Therefore, this project is not a replacement but a new proposal. The proposal is to provide a combination of hard and soft armoring along a naturally vegetated slope on the beach. Based on information in all of the reports submitted by the applicant, the hard armoring is proposed to protect the stairs accessing the beach. The reports state that 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring will be constructed. Based on the reports the 190 ft is to protect the stairway and the 220 ft is to protect the upslope features, including the fire lane (2013 GeoResources Report page 9). The fire lane is not under threat and while this proposal is substantially reduced from the original proposal, it still does not comply with the FWRC code which requires the shoreline stabilization to be the minimum necessary and monitoring of the shorelines. Additionally, the retreat center is set back 75 ft from the top of the slope and given the distance from the top of the slope, would not be under imminent threat. The report information provided also states the height of the former bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft. The proposal being considered under the variance is to construct the bulkhead to elevation 16.4 ft. Since the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft and still failed during heavy storms. Based on Ecology comments, the project proponent added a location variance for those portions of the hard armoring that will encroach into the OWH due to the site conditions. This is a typical construction practice in 11/13/13 Y:1238\062.020\RWBRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 28 areas where there are steep slopes. The height and location variance have merit for a bulkhead that is the minimum size necessary to provide protection. Therefore, based on the reports submitted by the applicant and the pertinent sections of the FWRC, the proposal should be modified to provide the minimum size necessary in an area where conservation of unarmored shorelines is recommended. CLOSING STATEMENT This review for the shoreline improvements proposed at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way, Washington was conducted by Landau Associates staff, Edward J. Heavey, P.E. and Theresa M. Turpin, AICP. The reviewers conducted a site visit on November 2, 2012. This report was prepared for the use of the City of Federal Way. The report is based on our understanding of the FWRC and the reports submitted by the applicant to the City of Federal Way and communication to the City by Ecology. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. TMT/EJH/jrc 11/13/13 Y:1238%062.020XRWBRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 29 REFERENCES Cultural Resource Consultants. 2012. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishops of Seattle. July 31. Ecology. 2010. Focus on Shoreline Armoring, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Healthy Shorelines Equal A Healthy Puget Sound. 10-06-004. Washington State Department of Ecology. February. Ecology. 2013. Email message from David Pater, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, Washington State Department of Ecology, to Janet Shull, Associate Senior Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Federal Way. Re: Federal Way revised Palisades Retreat Center project comments. August 7. ESA Adolfson. 2007. Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for City of Federal Way, June. GeoResources 2012. Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. July 31. Revised September 2, 2013. Soundview Consultants Report. 2012. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. August 2. Revised July 22, 2013. Yeager Associates. 2012. Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. August 2012. Revised July 22, 2013. Yelp, Inc. 2012. The Alex J Brunett Retreat Center. http;Ilwww.yelp.con-lbiztthe-alex i-brunett-retreat- center-federal-way#atb alias:AboutThisBizBialAue :archbisho °/o2Qbrunett%20 alisades%20retreat %20center. December 26. 11/13/13 Y1238k06ZO201R1ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 30 14 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Janet Shull, City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development FROM: Ed Heavey, P.E. and Theresa Turpin, AICP DATE: February 27, 2013 RE: THIRD -PARTY REVIEW OF THE PALISADES (ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT) RETREAT CENTER BULKHEAD AND STAIR REPLACEMENT FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This review is for the shoreline improvements proposed at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way, Washington. These activities will occur within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The required shoreline permit approvals from the City of Federal Way are: a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit — To replace a 45 foot (ft) wood/creosote bulkhead (hard annoring) with a new rock bulkhead of 380 ft in length • Shoreline Variance — To allow the rock bulkhead to exceed the bulkhead height requirement of the allowed 1 ft above Mean Higher High Water (MHHW). ■ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Construct new soft shore stabilization of 340 ft in length — Repair and replace a portion of the existing stairs damaged in recent storm events; the stairway location will have a minor relocation due to the recent slide. Documents provided for the review of the project proposal were: Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair, prepared by Yeager Associates, August 2012 (Yeager Associates report). 2. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs, prepared by Soundview Consultants, August 2012 (Soundview Consultants report). 3. Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration, prepared by GeoResources, July 2012. (GeoResources report). The reports were reviewed for conformance with the provisions of the following Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15, "Shoreline Management": ■ Section 15.05.040, "General Development Standards" 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 9 fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com • Section 15.05.050(l ), "Shoreline Modifications" for the proposed bulkhead • Section 15.05.160, "Shoreline Variance" for the additional height of the proposed bulkhead • Section 15.05.170, "Shoreline Conditional Use Permits" for the project being consistent with the required criteria. Additional information on Federal Way Shorelines was obtained from the Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson 2007). This' document was prepared as part of the Shoreline Master Program process. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ADJACENT LAND USE The ABRC property is located on approximately 36 acres west of Dumas Bay on Puget Sound in Federal Way, Washington and is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. The site address is 4700 Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington. The King County parcel numbers are 112103-9010 and 112103-9029. The zoning for the site is Suburban Estates (Low Density Residential 1 DU/5 acres) and those areas within 200 ft of the ordinary high water (OHW) are designated as Shoreline - Urban Conservancy. The site is surrounded by mostly single family dwellings and the property west of the site is owned by the Boy Scouts of America. The main ABRC structures are all outside the Urban Conservancy shoreline district and have been in place for over 50 years. The main structure, a club house, is set back about 75 ft from the top of the slope and an existing fire lane is between the clubhouse and the top of the slope. According to the GeoResources report, page 6, the firelane is setback about 140 ft from the limits of a historic slope failure and is approximately 15 ft from the top of the slope. A trail and stairway lead to the beach from the top of the slope. The stairs at the base of the slope are unsupported due to the recent slide. Beyond the slide area the shoreline bank is unarmored, vegetated, and from observations from the site visit (November 2, 2012), the shoreline is in a natural state. The site's shoreline extends over 700 ft along a predominantly north facing slope. Information from the provided reports indicate the OHW was determined to be at elevation 12.4 ft, with the MHHW at elevation 11.8 ft and the maximum observed high tide elevation 14.6 ft (Section 2.4 Soundview Consultants report). The property and surrounding area is described in the Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson 2007). The ABRC is west of Dumas Bay, and east of Dash Point State Park. Based on the report, the ABRC is in an area called Puget Sound West. Page 21 of the report provides background material on armoring of steep slopes in Puget Sound and Federal Way: "Of all the impacts of shore armoring in the Puget Sound area, sediment impoundment is probably the most significant negative impact (PSAT 2003, Pilkey 1988). Structures such as bulkheads, if functioning correctly, "lock up " bluff material that would otherwise be 03/13/13 YA238\062,01MMArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 73): supplied to the shore drift system. This results in a decrease in the quantity of drift sediment available for maintenance of down -drift beaches. The negative impact of sediment impoundment is most pronounced when armoring occurs along a feeder bluff with a high sediment yield such as the bluffs approximately one-half mile east of Adelaide and in the western portion of the study area, just east of Dash Point State Park (Johannessen et al 2005, Macdonald et al. 1994). Additionally, the extent of cumulative impacts from several long runs of bulkheads is a subject of great debate in the coastal research and management communities. A comparison of current and historical bluff conditions in King County documented that prior to modifications 49.5 percent of Federal Way shores were comprised offeeder bluffs (sediment sources). When compared with current conditions (37 percent), this represents a 25.2 percent loss of the total historic sediment sources in the Federal Way nearshore (Johannessen et al., 2005). As the bluffs in the study area continue to gradually recede, there will likely be an increasing desire for homeowners to build bulkheads. This would lead to further sediment impoundment and further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches would become "starved, " resulting in a reduction of the beach width and habitat degradation (Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse -grained (Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This would likely negatively impact forage fsh spawning and other habitat values of county beaches (Rice 2006)." Page 72 of the same report, adds discussion including the project proposal area: "Several feeder bluffs in Puget Sound West were identified for conservation. These include all mapped feeder bluffs in Dash Point State Park, and most of the feeder bluffs mapped along the north and northwestern sides of the headlands just west of Dumas Bay Park". The following mitigation recommendations are made in the ESA Adolfson report (pages 72 and "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay ■ Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore ■ Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Information from the ESA Adolfson report indicates the proposed project area is along a feeder bluff in Puget Sound West and recommends conserving the unarmored shorelines in the proposed project vicinity. 03/13/13 Y:\238\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES The project proposal is for the repair and/or replacement of the stairway and former bulkhead located on the property within the shoreline district. FWRC designates all saltwater shorelines within the City of Federal Way as critical habitat for sahnonids. The project proposal area is within the shoreline and therefore, within critical habitat for sahnonids. The Geologic Hazards Assessment report prepared by GeoResources (2012) states that based on their site observations and evaluation, a landslide hazard, erosion hazard area, and steep slopes areas exist on or within 25 ft of the site (pages 5,6). The Geologic Hazards Assessment report on page 6 states the project proposal is not within a seismic hazard area. NEED FOR THE PROJECT The beach access stairway has been destabilized by landslide activity and the loss of the existing 45 ft bulkhead. The central portion of the shoreline bank has slumped, allowing tall trees to fall onto the beach. Currently, the existing bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the OHW elevation and therefore, is not providing protection at the toe of the slope. This has caused creosote treated pilings to fail and move apart from each other allowing high tidal and wave action to erode material from behind the bulkhead. This tidal and wave action has caused failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The project, as proposed, is to provide a combination of hard and soft armoring to protect the site. The proposed improvements (Yeager Associates 2012) are intended to: 1. Maintain the water -enjoyment use of the property 2. Provide safe beach access 3. Stabilize the steep slope and soft sediments near the stairway to maintain stairway stability in the future 4. Provide additional protection to upslope facilities by stabilizing the remainder of the shoreline 5. Protect existing beach habitat and critical environmental processes to the maximum extent possible while fulfilling the need for the project 6. Restore compromised intertidal habitat by removing debris, such as the creosote pile bulkhead. SHORELINE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS Project Description The site was established in 1956 and according to the Yelp, Inc. website (2012) the main structure celebrated 50 years of service in 2007. The previous bulkhead which was 45 ft in length and 14.8 ft in height (page 4, Soundview Consultants report 2012) recently failed. Based on the Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 5, the stairway was established in 1956 and therefore, it is anticipated the stairs and bulkhead were in place for over 50 years prior to failing. 03/13/13 YA236\062.010\MArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 The project proposal is to reconfigure and replace the stairs and provide shoreline stabilization by using a combination of hard and soft annoring to provide beach access. The applicant is proposing to increase both the length and height of the former bulkhead. The previous bulkhead length was approximately 45 ft and covered approximately 7 percent of the site. The project proposal is providing over 700 ft of hard and soft armoring; therefore, the project proposal is providing 100 percent shoreline stabilization along this natural shoreline. Hard annoring is proposed to extend 380 ft along the natural shoreline at elevation 16.4 ft, adding an additional 335 ft of hard armoring in length from the previously existing bulkhead. Soft armoring is proposed for the remaining 340 ft of natural shoreline area. The project proposal, as presented in all of the reports, will add 1.6 ft in height above the previously existing site bulkhead. The height of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (Soundview Consultants 2012). The GeoResources report, page 8, recommends the hard annoring to extend 4 ft above OHW or elevation 16.4 ft. The regulatory requirements allowing rock bulkheads state the height cannot be higher than 1 ft above the MHHW elevation (11.8 ft), or a maximum of elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed bulkhead height is proposed to be 16.4 ft, which is 3.6 ft higher than what is allowed under the FWRC. FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE ANALYSIS Applicable Regulations of the FWRC are 15.05.040; 15.05.050; 15.05.160; and 15.05.170. In the reports prepared for the ABRC, the consultants have provided a review of the project proposal in relation to portions of the FWRC and the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The project, as proposed, is providing extensive armoring of a natural shoreline. Therefore, to fully discuss the proposed project, this document addresses each section of the related FWRC and all applicable sections of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. 15.05.040 General development standards The following general development standards apply to all uses and activities in all shoreline environments: (1) Impact mitigation. (a) To the extent the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (FWRC 14.05.010 and Chapter 197-11 WAC). Mitigation for adverse impacts to shoreline functions will be triggered during the SEPA review, shoreline land use permit process, or exemption approval process. The project proposal incorporates mitigation measures (page 5 and Appendix B7 of the Soundview Consultants report) by providing beach cleanup, removal of creosote pilings, and the remnants of an old barge left on the beach. 03/13/13 YA238\062.010ffArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 5 (b) Where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order ofpriority. (i) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Repairing the stairs and replacing the previous 45-ft bulkhead requires some impact to maintain access to the beach; therefore, the impact cannot be completely avoided. (ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; The project site is over 700 ft of natural shoreline. The hard and soft annoring will be installed landward of the OHW and will armor 100 percent of the natural shoreline. Per the GeoResources report, page 6, the project proposal is replacing 45-ft of piling bulkhead with 380 ft of hard annoring and 340 feet of soft armoring. Per the reports, the hard annoring will provide protection of the shoreline area and is planned to extend past the fire lane that wraps around the complex to the east portion of the site (GeoResources page 1 and 2). The project proposal is to add 335 ft of hard annoring thereby, increasing the shoreline hard annoring over eight times of what previously existed to protect both the fire lane and the repaired stairway. To further protect the shoreline from erosion, GeoResources recommends providing up to 340 ft of soft annoring along the natural shoreline. Additionally, the Soundview Consultants report states the 340 ft of soft armoring is to provide future protection to the upland structures including the fire lane. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the ABRC is west of Dumas Bay and in an area called Puget Sound West. This report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. While the project proposal recommends using soft armoring along part of the shoreline. Soft armoring is an appropriate technology, however, annoring 100 percent of a natural shoreline does not minimize impacts and goes against the recommendations for management of this shoreline. Therefore, the project proposal to armor 100 percent of the natural shoreline does not minimize impacts nor does it limit the degree or magnitude of the action. (iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; The Soundview Consultants report Section 5.1.4 states the mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the following mitigation recommendations are made: "Puget Sound West: ■ Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins ■ Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." 03/13/13 YA238\062.010WArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 6 Since the proposed mitigation complies with the last five bullets, the mitigation meets the requirement for repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; There is no discussion of ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the results of the armoring. Per the Soundview Consultants report, section 5.1.4, the mitigation will restore some of the natural sediment transport functions; this may reduce some of the impact of armoring 100 percent of the natural shoreline. (v) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and The mitigation (Soundview Consultants report, section 5.1.4 and Appendix C sheet 4 of 5) will enhance the shoreline area and environment by removing creosote pilings, and debris embedded in the beach including tires and decaying barge, to provide compensation. (vi) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. The report provides for best management practices (BMPs) during project construction which should minimize construction impacts (Soundview Consultants, Chapter 6); however, there is no ongoing monitoring of the shoreline impact proposed in the reports provided. (c) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the following mitigation recommendations are made: "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment ■ Remove creosote piles." Therefore, the proposed mitigation is tailored to specific recommendations for this shoreline. (d) Required mitigation shall not be in excess of that necessary to assure that proposed uses or development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 03/13/13 YA236\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 7 Based on the proposed mitigation and the shoreline inventory and characterization (ESA Adolfson report) the project proposal mitigation is not in excess. However, due to the changing from 7 percent of armored shoreline to the proposed armoring of 100 percent. of a natural shoreline, the mitigation may not assure the proposed armoring results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The Soundview Consultants report, Section 5.1.4 states: "No net loss of ecological functions are anticipated. " The mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. The GeoResources report, at the bottom of page 7 states, "The rock bulkhead will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe of slope. " Reducing erosion constitutes a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Based on infonnation from the ESA Adolfson report, the project proposal is located in an area where there are known feeder slopes and the recommendations include conserving these unarmored shoreline areas. The shoreline was formerly 7 percent armored. Restoring some sediment transport functions through mitigation may not fully compensate for the loss of material that will be created from hard and soft armoring 100 percent of a natural shoreline. The proposed mitigation is not in excess of that necessary, but may not fully compensate for the loss of shoreline ecological functions. (e) Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the Shoreline Management Act. The mitigation action to remove beach debris does not have an adverse impact on other shoreline functions. 69 When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impactedfunctions directly and are located in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation may be authorized ifsaid mitigation occurs within the watershed and addresses limitingfactors or identified critical needs for shoreline conservation based on watershed or comprehensive management plans. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms, or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The proposed mitigation is located in the irmnediate project proposal vicinity. (2) Vegetation conservation. Existing shoreline vegetation shall be preserved per development standards established for each shoreline environment designation. Shifting the stairway to avoid the recent slide area will result in some vegetation loss; however, that loss will be replanted thus, at the stairway vegetation removal is the minimum size necessary. The applicant has provided a planting plan for the site, including the hard and soft armoring areas. See Appendix C, sheet 5 of 5 in the Soundview Consultants report. (3) Water quality/stormwater. All activities and development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall incorporate water pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to water quality from construction activities as well as the need for permanent stormwater management facilities in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of all applicable city and state regulations. 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\1RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES The Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 6, page 18, provides recommendations for appropriate BMPs for construction of stormwater management. Per the GeoResources report, page 8, the proposed hard armoring is a rock wall with free -draining backfill material allowing water to flow off the rock wall. The project proposal will be constructed in a naturally vegetated area which currently allows for water to sheet flow off the slope to the beach. The stairway, like a trail or sidewalk, is a non -pollution generating surface, needle piling is proposed for the replacement which provides support with minimal disturbance; therefore, the project proposal will comply with all stormwater requirements. (4) Critical areas. Activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC, Critical Areas, and Chapter 15.15 FWRC, Flood Damage Prevention, for each area described below. (a) Any conflict between the standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 or 15.15 FWRC and the SMP shall be resolved in favor of the standard that is most protective of the shoreline ecological functions. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapters 15.1 U and 15.15 FWRC, the following minimum requirements shall apply with regard to activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) Minimum setbacks from the OIIWM established by this chapter shall be maintained in all cases unless a shoreline variance is granted. All proposed armoring is landward of OHW which ineets the setback as required by the shoreline code. (fi) When FWRC 15.10.270 (Structures, improvements, and clearing and grading within regulated wetland buffers), subsections (5) Wetland Buffer Reduction and (6) Modffication, are utilized for a project proposal, a shoreline variance permit is required if the overall proposed buffer width reduction exceeds 25 percent. According to the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no wetlands were observed in the project proposal area. (b) Geologically hazardous areas. Regulated geologically hazardous areas located in the shoreline jurisdiction include seismic hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slopes, and erosion hazard areas. If a geologically hazardous area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, and IV of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC, the following shall apply with regard to activities and development in geologically hazardous areas found within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) Creation of new lots shall be prohibited where development and use on new lots would cause a foreseeable risk from geological conditions during the life of the development. Per the GeoResources report, page 6, the project proposal is within a steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard area; however, no new lots will be created as part of the project proposal. (ii) New development that causes riskfr-om geological conditions should not be allowed. 03/13/13 YA238\062.010 MArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES The project proposal is to repair and maintain the stairs and to provide shoreline armoring. The project proposal is proposing a solution to protect the site from geologic conditions such as landslides. (iii) New development on sites with steep slopes and bluffs is required to be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the project as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. A geotechnical analysis has been completed for the project proposal and all work is proposed landward of the OHW providing the appropriate setback under the FWRC. (c) Streams and wetlands. If a stream or wetland is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, V, and VI of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. As stated previously, per the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no wetlands or streams were observed in the project proposal area. (d) Flood damage reduction. If an area of special flood hazard is located on or adjacent to a development site within shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC. All activities allowed within the special flood hazard area by the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC shall not result in a net loss of ecological function. The project proposal is in a Flood Hazard Area according to the Soundview Consultants report, section 4.5. (e) Critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. If a critical aquifer recharge area or wellhead protection area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, and VII of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. As stated previously in the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no Critical Aquifer Recharge areas were observed or known to be within the project proposal area. (S) Critical salmonid habitats. All salt water shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats. The project proposal is work along a saltwater shoreline which means it is within a critical salmonid habitat. 03/13/13 YA236\062.010 MArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dom LANDAU ASSOCIATES 10 Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the following development standards, in addition to those contained in other sections of this chapter: (a) Structures which prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead are prohibited. Fish bypass facilities shall allow the upstreamm migration of adult fish. Fish bypass facilities shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. Project proposal work will be landward of OHW and does not create structures that prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead. (b) Shoreline modification structures may intrude into critical salmonid habitats only where the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met: (i) An alternative alignment or location is not feasible; Since all saltwater shorelines are considered critical salmonid habitat, it is anticipated the interpretation of intruding into a critical salmonid habitat means work waterward of OHW. It would appear constructing the shoreline annoring landward of OHW complies with this condition. (ii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; The project proposal is along the shoreline and the only in -water work proposed is the mitigation. Section 5.2, page 14 of the Soundview Consultants report states the minimum amount of hard armoring is being proposed to protect the existing uses. According to all of the reports, the use of bard and soft annoring is designed to minimize impacts to the shoreline. However, based on the ESA Adolfson report, sections cited earlier in this document states: "...further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches would become "starved, " resulting in a reduction of the beach width and habitat degradation (Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse -grained (Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This would likely negatively impact forage fish spawning and other habitat values of county beaches (Rice 2006). " Therefore, the project may not be designed to fully minimize impacts on the environment. (iii) If the project will create unavoidable adverse impacts, the impacts are mitigated by creating in -kind replacement habitat near the project. Where in -kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute; Per the Soundview Consultants report, the project proposal in -water work is the mitigation. This includes removing creosote pilings, a decaying barge structure, and other debris on the beach. It is anticipated this work will also restore some of the natural sediment transport functions. The mitigation does rehabilitate degraded habitat. (iv) The project satisfies all provisions ofFWRC 15.05.050, Shoreline modifications 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\R\Archbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES I Based on information in the Yeager Associates report, the area under imminent threat is 150 ft of shoreline at the base of the stairs where the hard armoring will be constructed once all approvals are obtained. However, the full project proposal is for 380 ft of hard armoring and 340 ft of soft armoring. The GeoResources, report on page 7 states "the rock bulkhead area will generally be located where the old timber pile bulkhead and the old barge is located. Based on the site plans provided on Figure 2 of the GeoResources report, this distance is approximately 150 ft in length. It is unclear from all of tJie reports how much hard annoring constitutes the minimum necessary to protect the site. Based on the information in the reports, 150 ft of hard annoring will be constructed immediately and is the minimum size necessary to provide protection for those areas under imminent threat. 15.05.050 General development standards (])Shoreline stabilization may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment. Hard armoring (e.g., bulkheads and riprap) is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit in the urban conservancy environment. Soft -shore stabilization may be permitted in the urban conservancy environment. Shoreline stabilization proposals shall address thefollowing: (a) Shoreline stabilization, including bulkheads, shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the city's shorelines. In order for shoreline stabilization to be permitted the city must find that: (i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified professional, that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and the urgency associated with the specific situation; and The applicant has provided a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional (GeoResources). Page 6 of this report provides information that the area is on an active or ongoing landslide hazard. There was no additional information on the rate of erosion. Alternatives evaluated in all of the reports included the no action alternative, soft armoring alternative, hard armoring alternative, and a combination of soft and hard armoring on the shoreline. The GeoResources report, page 7, states the rock bulkhead area will generally be located where the old timber pile bulkhead and the old barge is located. Based on the site plans provided on Figure 2 of the GeoResources report, this distance is approximately 150 ft in length. The GeoResources report did not provide an estimated rate of erosion. The reports evaluate alternative solutions and the urgency is to protect the existing stairwell to maintain shoreline access. (ii) Soft -shore stabilization alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization, gravel berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioritized over structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" effective alternative shall be utilized; and The only soft shore stabilization technique proposed is anchoring large woody debris with large boulders. The soft armoring, as proposed, does incorporate native vegetation as shown on the mitigation plan, Appendix C, sheet 4 of 5 in the Soundview Consultants report. (iii) In the case ofproposed hard armoring stabilization solutions (e.g., bulkheads and riprap), erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to a legally established primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water -dependent development, ecological restoration/toxic clean-up remediation projects, or public improvements; and 03/13/13 YA238\062.01MMArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 12 The Soundview Consultant report, section 5.2, page 15 states: "Due to recent slide events and the current state of beach access stairway necessitates shoreline stabilization measures as soon as possible." However, the only portion of the hard armoring proposed to be constructed within the next 3 years is 150 ft (Yeager and Associates report, page 3). According to the Yeager and Associates report, subsequent portions of the project proposal including the rest of the hard annoring and soft annoring would occur before or after 2020. Therefore, based on the reports, the only clear and imminent danger is to the existing stairway which is an established shoreline use and was previously protected by the 45-ft bulkhead. (iv) In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilization is located landward of the ordinary high water mark,- and According to all of the reports, the soft and hard annoring is proposed landward of the OHW. (v) The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements; and The case made in all of the reports is the area is subject to erosion and the combination of hard and soft armoring 100 percent of the shoreline is the minimum size necessary to protect the site. Yet, only 150 ft of hard armoring will be immediately constructed. Additionally, the area has been subject to erosion since it was constructed in the 1950s. The 45-ft bulkhead protected the site for over 50 years. The upland site structures are all over 200 ft from OHW. The past armoring on the site equated to 7 percent of the shoreline. It is unclear how proposing an increase from 7 percent to 100 percent of shoreline armoring fully complies with the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements. The GeoResources report recommends the 380-ft linear rock wall (hard armoring), based on the location of the historic landslide hazard (Figure 2 site plan); however, it does not discuss if the historic landslide area is under imminent threat (within 3 years). The GeoResources report on page 7 states: "...the rock bulkhead area will generally be located where the old timber pile bulkhead and the old barge is located. " Based on the site plans provided on Figure 2 of the GeoResources report, this distance is approximately 150 ft in length. Furthermore, the Soundview Consultant report, section 5.2, page 15 states that the [380-ft] rock wall is the minimum needed to protect the stairway, yet the Yeager Associates report states that 150 ft of rock wall will be constructed immediately to protect the stairway. Considering that a 45-ft bulkhead (7 percent armoring) protected the stairway (including the stairway portions in the historic landslide area) and the site for over 50 years and that 150 ft of rock wall is proposed to be constructed immediately to protect the stairway, it is not clear how the full 380 ft of rock annoring is the minimum size necessary to protect areas under imminent threat and how the additional 340 ft of soft armoring (100 percent armoring) combined with the hard armoring is the minimum size necessary to protect the site. Additionally, the Soundview Consultants report in Section 5.1.3, under the evaluation of total soft armoring of the site states: "Over several years the full soft armoring likely to result in structural failure at the base of the stairwell... " 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 13 Note the soft armoring evaluation indicates a failure will occur over several years, most likely similar to the previous bulkhead failure. Based on information in the GeoResources report stating the bulkhead should be generally located where the old timber pile bulkhead and old barge is located (a length of approximately 150 ft) and the Yeager Associates report states that 150 ft of hard armoring will be constructed immediately to protect the stairway, the report information would indicate 150 ft of hard armoring is the minimum size necessary to protect the stairs. (vi) The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment transport are minimized to the greatest extent possible; and The Soundview Consultants report, Section 5.2, page 15, states the geotechnical data indicates that littoral sediment transport will be maintained post project. Littoral drift is the movement of sediments along the shoreline. The GeoResources report on page 8 states: "...soft armor slows the wave energy and traps sediments on the upland portion of the beach. " However, it is not clear in the report how the hard armoring will minimize impacts to sediment transport to the greatest extent possible. Information in the mitigation section of the Soundview Consultants report, Section 5.1.4, states: "...no net loss of ecological functions are anticipated. " The mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. The GeoResources report on page 7 states the rock bulkhead will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe and improve shoreline stability. If the erosion is reduced, one would anticipate less sediment transport occurring, due to 380 ft of hard armored shoreline. The hard armoring proposed is a rock wall that has free draining backfill material behind the rock (GeoResources, page 8) and is not a solid bulkhead; however, it is still not clear from the reports if the mitigation, which will restore "some natural sediment transport functions", will fully compensate for interruptions in sediment transport that may occur from 380 ft of hard armoring. (vii) Shoreline stabilization shall not have an adverse impact on the property of others and shall be designed so as not to create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere; and The GeoResources report on page 7 states the combination of hard and soft armoring will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. (viii) Shoreline stabilization shall not significantly interfere with normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using an approved f lter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage of surface and groundwater without internal erosion offine material; and The GeoResources report, page 4 states: "Significant groundwater seepage was not observed in any of our exploration holes at the time of excavation. " Additionally, the Soundview Consultants report on page 16 states from the background research and the site visit, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of groundwater. 03/13/13 YA236\062.010\R\Archbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 14 (ix) Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and All construction work will be conducted landward of OHW and no new lands will be created by the project proposal. (x) Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline stabilization proposal within fresh water lake shorelines; and Work is not within any fresh water lake shorelines. (xi) Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and The project proposal is within the marine shoreline and will not use creosote treated wood. (xii) Revegetation with native plants is required as part of the shoreline stabilization project; and The mitigation proposed includes native plantings; see Soundview Consultants report, Appendix B, sheet 5 of 5. (xiii) Shoreline stabilization shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological functions. The Soundview Consultants report, Section 5.1.4 states: ... no net loss of ecological functions are anticipated." The Soundview Consultants report also states mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. The GeoResources report, at the bottom of page 7 states: "The rock bulkhead will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe of slope." Reducing erosion may contribute to a net loss sediment transport and, therefore, a loss of shoreline ecological functions. As discussed previously, "erosion" is a way of replenishing and maintaining Puget Sound beaches. The shoreline formerly had 7 percent shoreline armoring. Restoring some sediment transport functions through mitigation may not fully compensate for the loss of sediment transport that is bound to occur from hard and soft armoring 100 percent of a natural shoreline. (b) When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection (1)(a) of this section, the following standards shall apply: (i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters, or one foot in height above the elevation of ordinary high water mark on lakes, measured from grade on the waterward side of the bulkhead or structure; and The Soundview Consultant report provides the MHHW at elevation 11.8 ft and the OHW at elevation 12.4 ft. Due to the maximum observed tidal height at elevation 14.6 ft, the height of the bulkhead is proposed elevation 16.4 ft. Therefore the proposed rock bulkhead will extend approximately 4 ft in 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\RV\rchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 15 height from the landward side of the OHW. Based on the FWRC, the maximum elevation of the hard armoring would be elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed rock wall height will be approximately 3.6 ft higher than allowed by the FWRC. (ii) When a bulkhead or other stabilization structure has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead or structure must be located at or landward of the ordinary high water mark. Based on information in all the reports, the construction of the hard and soft armoring and repair of the stairway will all be located at or landward of the OHW. (iii) Repair of an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is permitted provided that the repaired bulkhead or structure is not relocated further waterward or increased in height. As stated above, the new bulkhead will be increased in height. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. Therefore the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. (iv) If an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is made within one year of destruction. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. The previous bulkhead was a 45-ft long bulkhead with the top of the bulkhead at elevation 14.8 ft. The project proposal increases both the length and height of the previously existing bulkhead by proposing a 380-ft long bulkhead, with the top of the bulkhead at elevation 16.4 ft. The replacement, as proposed, is larger than the previously existing shoreline stabilization structure and should be considered a new shoreline structure. (v) Soft -shoreline stabilization measures thatprovide restoration ofshoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. All proposed shoreline stabilization measures are landward of OHW and the soft shoreline stabilization measures are not intended to provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions. (vi) The project satisfies the provisions of FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b), Project proposal may not be in compliance with 15.05.040 (5)(b) since it is questionable whether it is the minimum size necessary to protect the stairs and the potential habitat impacts caused by 380 ft of hard annoring, 340 ft of soft annoring covering 100 percent of an area of natural shoreline. 03/13/13 YA238\062.010 MArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 16 15.05.160 Shoreline variance (1) The purpose of a shoreline variance is to grant relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the shoreline master program, where there is an extraordinary or unique circumstance relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the shoreline master program would impose unnecessary hardship on the applicant or thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (2) When a variance is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the variance, shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the final approval authority for the city of Federal Way. The Department of Ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) A variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply: (a) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; As stated above, the new bulkhead will be increased in height to provide protection of the stairs that provide access to the site shoreline. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. This means that the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (b) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions; The hardship of limiting the bulkhead height is due to unique features on the site, including the historic landslide areas, steep slopes, and tidal wave actions, and is not a result of the applicant's own actions. The need for the higher bulkhead is to protect the replaced stairway which, once repaired, will restore access to the shoreline by those individuals staying at the retreat center. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Allowing the additional height to the bulkhead should be compatible with other permitted activities in the area, since the protection is needed to provide shoreline access and provide continued protection of the stairway accessing the site. The GeoResources report, page 7 states the project proposal will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief,• 03/13/13 YA23e\062.010\R\Archbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU AssoCIATES 17 Since the height of the previous bulkhead [2-ft higher (elevation 14.8 ft) than the allowed height], was still over topped by tidal action, this overtopping by tidal action, most likely contributed to the previous bulkhead failure. Therefore, allowing the shoreline variance to increase in height of 3.6 ft above the allowed height to allow protection of the stairway to maintain shoreline access is not a grant of special privilege. Other properties in the area could be afforded the same relief to protect shoreline access. Based on site information; the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft and still failed; the maximum observed tide at the site was elevation 14.6 ft (Soundview Consultants report) which is above the allowed bulkhead height; and the recent Puget Sound "king tide" events, the 3.6 -ft height variance is the minimum necessary to protect the shoreline and provide relief for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The additional height does not interfere with the use of the shoreline; it provides and maintains access to the shoreline for the guests at the ABRC. The bulkhead will be landward of the OHW and based on the previous document discussion, the added height on the bulkhead should not cause a detrimental effect provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. ()q That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and The project proposal for additional bulkhead height is landward of the OHW; therefore, the additional height for the bulkhead will not impact the public rights of navigation of the public waterway. (g) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline. Since the maximum observed tide in the project area was elevation 14.6 ft and the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (2-ft higher than the elevation allowed by the FWRC), and still failed, based on information in all the reports, the additional height is needed to protect the stairs. Alternatively, if the height variance was denied and the bulkhead was constructed at a lower height which, due to tidal action failed, the bulkhead and stair debris that would occur from this event could have an adverse effect on the shoreline. Granting the bulkhead height variance is consistent with shoreline policies by maintaining shoreline access, providing the improvement landward of OHW, and protecting the stairway access. Additionally, protection of the stairs prevents them from failing and falling onto the shoreline area and will prevent adverse effects on the shoreline, provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (4) Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment, or to vary uses permitted within an environmental designation. (Ord. No. 11-705, § 5 (Exh. B), 03/13/13 Y1238\062.010ffArchbishopShoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 18 The shoreline variance is to provide additional height to the proposed bulkhead and supports an allowed use in the shoreline district. Allowing additional height on a bulkhead should be limited to a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. 15.05.170 Conditional uses (1) The purpose of the conditional use permit is to provide greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the shoreline master program. in a manner which will be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW, particularly where denial of the application would thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (2) When a conditional use is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the conditional use, shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the final approval authority for the city of Federal Way. The Department of Ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) Conditional uses have unique and special characteristics which require a special degree of control to make the uses compatible with other existing or permitted uses in the same environment, and to assure that the use is in the public interest. In authorizing a conditional use permit, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the hearing examiner to prevent undesirable effects or mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed use. (4) Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent with the following criteria: (a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies ofRCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the shoreline master program; The project proposal to provide a bulkhead which will provide protection to a stairway that allows access to the shoreline is consistent with the policies of the shoreline master program. The goals and policies of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are discussed in the Yeager Associates report. The main area of concern, as asserted in the code discussion above, is the amount of armoring proposed. The previous annoring was 7 percent of the shoreline while this project proposal is to armor 100 percent of the shoreline. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the ABRC is west of Dumas Bay and in an area called Puget Sound West. The following recommendations are made in the report: "Puget Sound West: ■ Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment ■ Remove creosote piles" According to the ESA Adolfson report, part of the required reviews in developing a Shoreline Master Plan supports the proposed mitigation; however, the report also recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. In-depth discussions on the goals and policies of the applicable sections of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are below. (b) The use will not interfere with normal use ofpublic shorelines; 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 19 The project proposal is in an area that is not open to the public and all development work will occur landward of OHW and therefore, should not interfere with the normal use of the public shoreline. (c) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area; The GeoResources report, page 7, states the combination of hard and soft armoring will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. (d) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Based on publications from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program: "Shorelines are dynamic, especially in drift zones where currents run in a particular direction and constantly move material along the beach. Disrupting the sediment supply can change the nature and composition of nearby beaches... " Furthermore, the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unannored shorelines west of Dumas Bay (cited at the beginning of this document). Therefore, the public interest may suffer detrimental effects due to the annoring disrupting the sediment supply and changing the composition of nearby beaches, especially the nearby public shorelines. (e) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The Soundview Consultants report, section 5.3.1, page 17 discusses cumulative impacts for like actions. The Yeager Associates report, on page 9, defers to the Soundview Consultants report for cumulative impacts for like actions. The reports state there would only be a minor cumulative impact from like requests. The site is located in a littoral drift zone (GeoResources report, Figure 6). Based on publications from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program: "Shorelines are dynamic, especially in drift zones where currents run in a particular direction and constantly move material along the beach. Disrupting the sediment supply can change the nature and composition of nearby beaches... " The project proposal will be replacing 45 ft of hard armoring (7 percent of the total beach armored) and increasing it to 380 ft of hard armoring and 340 ft of soft armoring which will end up with 100 percent of total beach armoring. Given the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmed shorelines west of Dumas Bay (cited at the beginning of this document), a cumulative impact is bound to occur if 100 percent of the adjacent shorelines are annored with a combination of soft and hard shoreline armoring. (S) Other uses not set forth in the shoreline master program may be authorized through a conditional use permit if the applicant can demonstrate that other uses are consistent with the purpose of the shoreline environmental designation and compatible with existing shoreline improvements, or that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property; however, uses specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. (Ord. No. 11-705, § S (Exh. B), 03/13/13 Y:1236\062.010 MArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 20 The use is authorized in the shoreline district. Goal SMPG1 Shoreline areas shall permit a variety of development types in accordance with the City's zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) designations. Designs, densities, and locations for all allowed uses and developments should consider physical and natural features of the shoreline and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Policies SMPPI Shoreline land and water areas particularly suited for specific and appropriate uses should be designated and reserved for such uses. The project proposal is supporting the stairway to maintain shoreline access which is an appropriate shoreline use. SMPP2 Shoreline land and water uses should satisfy the economic, social, and physical needs of the regional population, but should not lead to a net loss of ecological functions in the shoreline areas. Based on the all the reports, it is not clear how changing from 7 percent of shoreline annoring to 100 percent of shoreline annoring along a natural shoreline will not lead to a net loss of ecological functions. SMPP3 Like or compatible shoreline uses should be clustered or distributed in a rational manner, rather than allowed to develop haphazardly. The project proposal is an existing use to support the retreat center next to property used by the Boy Scouts of America. SMPP4 Multiple uses of shoreline should be encouraged where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. The project proposal is being developed on a private shoreline that has operated as a retreat center for over 50 years. Due to the serene setting, the integration of compatible uses such as opening access across private property to the shoreline would not be compatible or feasible with the site use as a retreat center. SMPP5 Shoreline ecological functions should be protected from uses or activities that will have an adverse effect on them. Based on the ESA Adolfson report, the construction of 380 ft of hard armoring and 340 ft of soft annoring along a beach that was previously armored with a 45-ft bulkhead could create an adverse effect, especially since the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unannored shorelines within this project area. SMPP6 Non-residential uses or activities that are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to locate or relocate away from the shoreline. 03/13/13 YA238\062.01MMArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 21 The project proposal supports a shoreline dependent use. SMPP7 Federal Way should consider the goals, objectives, and policies of the shoreline master program in all land use management decisions regarding the use or development of adjacent uplands where such use or development may have an adverse effect on designated shorelines. The project proposal is not developing the upland portion of the site, this does not apply. SMPP8 Development should be regulated accordingly in shoreline areas known to contain development hazards or which would adversely impact designated critical areas as identified in Title 15 of the FWRC. a. All development should be prohibited within the 100 year floodplain, except single-family residential and water -dependent or water -related uses. The project proposal to construct shoreline armoring and reconstruct the stairs providing access supports access to the shoreline, a water -dependent use. b. All development should be prohibited in shoreline areas ofsevere or very severe landslide hazard. The project proposal is for shoreline stabilization. According to the GeoResources report, the project proposal is proposed in a landslide hazard area. c. All development should be regulated in shoreline areas with slopes of 40 percent or greater. The GeoResources report on page 2 states the area has inclinations of greater than 60 percent. The project proposal is to provide additional protection to the stairway to protect access to the shoreline area. d. Shoreline areas containing other potential hazards (e.g., geological conditions, unstable subsurface conditions, erosion hazards, or groundwater or seepage problems) should be regulated as necessary to avoid unsafe development and disturbance ofsensitive areas. The project proposal is in an erosion hazard area according to the GeoResources report. The stabilization and reconstruction of the stairs is regulated under the FWRC. SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing Shoreline Management Act requirements. The project proposal is on private property, the City of Federal Way is implementing the Shoreline Management Act Requirements through the FWRC. SMPG2 Residential use ofshoreline areas should be continued and encouraged in areas that have not been designated as Natural environments by the SMP, allowing a variety of housing types. New development or redevelopment of residential uses should cause no net loss of shoreline ecological function as identified in the SMP's Shoreline Inventory Characterization and Analysis. 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 22 The project proposal is not a residential development and the goals and policies of SMPG2 do not apply. SMPG3 Shoreline areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP to allow for commercial development shall permit a variety of commercial and office park development .types. New development or expansion of existing commercial and office uses should result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not expansion for commercial or office use, the goals and policies of SMPG3 do not apply. SMPG4 Regional and subregional utility facilities, including communications, (radio, TV, and telephone), energy distribution (petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity), water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers should not be allowed in shoreline areas unless there is no alternative location. Design, location, construction, and maintenance of utilityfacilities must comply with the requirements of SMP regulations and other federal, state, and local laws, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not a regional or subregional utility facility, the goals and policies of SMPG4 do not apply. SMPG5 Limit shoreline stabilization — which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action — including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulkheading, to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Policies SMPP3I Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. The project proposal is to replace the previously existing bulkhead that was 45 ft in length and 14.8 ft in height with a rock bulkhead that will be 380 ft in length and 1.6 ft higher (16.4 ft in height) with soft armoring that will extend an additional 340 ft in length. This is replacing 7 percent of shoreline stabilization on a natural shoreline zoned urban conservancy with 100 percent shoreline stabilization. Additionally, the 45-ft long bulkhead provided protection of the existing stairs for a period of over 50 years. Based on information from the GeoResources report and the Yeager Associates report, the area in need of protection appears to be approximately 150 ft in length. The 150 ft of shoreline stabilization should provide protection of the reconfigured stairway that will be constructed as part of this project proposal. The need to increase from 7 percent shoreline stabilization to 100 percent shoreline stabilization has not been clearly demonstrated. SMPP32 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as bioengineering or soft -shore armoring would not be able to protect existing development. 03/13/13 YA236\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 23 In Section 5 of the Soundview Consultants report, the soft armoring alternative discussion states that over a period of several years, the soft armoring would fail and the upland structures (the clubhouse is over 75 ft from the top of the slope) would be in danger. SMPP33 Planning ofshoreline stabilization should encompass sizable stretches of lake or marine shorelines. This planning should consider off -site erosion, accretion, or flood damage that might occur as a result of shoreline protection structures or activities. All of the reports state there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of the project proposal and the neighboring properties will not be impacted by the project proposal. SMPP34 Shoreline stabilization on marine and lake shorelines should not be used as a means of creating new or newly developable land. The project proposal will not create new lands. SMPP35 Shoreline stabilization structures should allow passage ofground and surface waters into the main water body. The GeoResources report shows the design of the rock wall allowing water to move through the rocks to prevent hydrostatic pressures from building up behind the wall, allowing the passage of water into the main water body. The soft shoreline armoring proposed is anchored logs and would also allow passage of water into the main water body. SMPP36 Shoreline stabilization should not reduce the volume and storage capacity of streams and adjacent wetlands or flood plains. Project proposal is not in a wetland or stream. Project proposal is in a FSHA and adding the support rock may constitute fill in a flood plain. SMPP37 Whenever shoreline stabilization is needed, bioengineered alternatives such as natural berms and erosion control vegetation plans should be favored over hard surfaced structural alternatives such as concrete bulkheads and sheet piles. Per the Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 5, the only soft armoring alternative considered was the use of anchored logs. The report concluded that the use of soft armoring eventually would fail and place the structures at the top of the slope at risk. SMPP38 The burden ofprooffor the need for shoreline stabilization to protect existing developments or proposed redevelopments rests on the applicant. The need for some shoreline stabilization is evident from the reports; however, it may be less than the 380 linear ft of proposed hard armoring. 03/13/13 Y:\236\062.010\R\Nrchbishop Shoreline final synopsisdou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 24 SMPP39 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or increased shoreline protection on the same or other affected properties where there has been no previous need for protection should not be allowed. Only 7 percent of the shoreline was armored in the past, the project proposal is to conduct shoreline stabilization activities on 100 percent of the shoreline, on areas where there has been no previous need for protection. The ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines in this area. SMPP40 New development shall be designed and located so as not to require shoreline stabilization. The stairway will be replaced in a different area due to a recent slide, but is still repair and maintenance. Pin piles will secure the stairway in place. The bulkhead is considered new development since it is both higher and longer than the shoreline stabilization that previously existed on the site. SMPP4I Areas of significance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or residency of aquatic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in review ofproposed shoreline stabilization activities. The shoreline stabilization is placed landward of the OHW to minimize the impacts on critical salmonid habitat. SMPP42 Shoreline stabilization activities should be discouraged in areas where they would disrupt natural feeder bluffs processes important for maintaining beaches. The project proposal is to support the existing shoreline access; however the stabilization proposed is significantly larger than previous stabilization on the site and the use of pin piles would be anticipated to provide better support for the stairway than what previously existed on the site. SMPG6 Docks and moorages should be allowed when associated with residential, recreational, or other public facilities. The design, location, and construction of any dock, pier or moorage should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not a dock, moorage, or pier; the goals and policies of SMPG6 do not apply. SMPG7 Increase public access to and enjoyment ofshoreline areas through improvements to physical access on publicly owned lands and improved visual access provided that private rights, public safety, and shoreline ecological functions remain intact. The project proposal is on private property and the goals and policies of the SMPG7 do not apply. SMPG8 Provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented recreation opportunities that are diverse, convenient, and adequate for the regional population, and that will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 03/13/13 Y:\236\062.010\R\Archbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU AssocIATES 25 The project proposal is not on public land and is only open to regional population if they are a paying guest of the ABRC. The ABRC is proposing the project to maintain the guest's access to the shoreline; however, based on the goal to provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented uses adequate for the regional population, the goals and policies of SMPG8 do not apply to private property. SMPG9 Recreational experiences that depend on, or utilize, the shoreline (including: harvesting activities offish, shellfish, fowl, minerals, and driftwood; various forms of boating, swimming, and utilization of shoreline pathways; and watching or recording activities, such as photography, painting, or the viewing of water dependent activities) shall be encouraged within parks and other public access areas, given they do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and are allowed uses under state and local regulations. The project proposal is not a park or public property. The project proposal is on private property; the goals and policies of SMPG9 do not apply. SMPG10 Preserve and protect the ecological functions of intact natural shorelines and ecologically sensitive shorelines as outlined within the shoreline inventory and characterization. The project proposal does not comply with the recommendations of the ESA Adolfson report, page 21. The project proposal proposes to armor 100 percent of a natural shoreline in an area where conserving unarmored shorelines is recommended. Policies SMPP68 Manage designated critical areas in the shoreline — such as critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, regulated wetlands, and streams — according to measures provided in this Shoreline Master Program. These include shoreline environment designations, allowed uses, development standards and regulations, and mitigation for unavoidable impacts. They should also be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 9, Natural Environment, of the Comprehensive Plan. There were no other critical areas observed on the site per the reports. SMPP69 Develop standards, buffers, and mitigation requirements for designated critical areas in the shoreline consistent with city-wide regulations. There were no other critical areas observed on the site per the reports. SMPG11 Assure preservation of unique and non-renewable natural resources and assure conservation of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations and the public interest. Policies SMPP70 All new development and activity in or adjacent to shoreline areas should be designed, constructed, and operated as to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality. Use of State and Local Best Management Practices and guidance should be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality. 03/13/13 YA238\062.01MMArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 26 The project proposal reports provide information stating the project proposal will use BMPs and adverse impacts to ground or surface water is avoided (see discussion on page 13 of this document). SMPP71 Shorelines that are of unique or valuable natural character should be considered for acquisition. Subsequent management of such areas should protect or enhance shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is on private property and the shoreline is an integral use of that property. Acquiring the property may not be feasible for many reasons. SMPP72 Protection and conservation of vegetation within shoreline areas should be managed through implementation ofsetback, clearing and grading, and mitigation standards for development activity. The project proposal will preserve vegetation and provide mitigation plantings. The rock wall and stair repair will be landward of OHW to meet the setback requirements. SMPP73 Resource conservation should be an integral part of shoreline planning. All future shoreline development should be planned, designed, and sited to minimize adverse impact upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. The project proposal is constructed landward of OHW to minimize the adverse impacts upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. The concern is the length of shoreline armoring proposed on this natural shoreline. SMPG12 Develop regional solutions with other jurisdictions, tribes, and interested parties to resolve the challenge of protecting shoreline ecological functions while also managing shoreline developments. The project proposal is on private property the goals and policies of SMPG12 do not apply. SMPG13 Pursue projects to restore and enhance shoreline habitats and processes on publicly owned lands. The project proposal is on private property the goals and policies of SMPG13 do not apply, SMPG14 Encourage voluntary restoration projects on private property in degraded shoreline environments. The project proposal is providing some bioengineering, but it is part of a regulatory process not a voluntary restoration process. The goals and policies of SMPG 14 do not apply in this case. SMPG15 Provide ample opportunityfor the public to learn about the ecological aspects and community values of the City's shorelines. 03/13/13 YA238\062.010\RWrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx t..ANDAu ASSOCIATES 27 The project proposal is located on private property and the goals and policies of SMPG15 do not apply. SMPG16 Identify, protect, preserve, and restore important archaeological, historical, and cultural sites located in or associated with Federal Way's shorelines for scientific and educational purposes. The project proposal does not impact any archaeological, historical, or cultural resources sites according to the Archaeological and Cultural Resources Report (2012) and SMPG16 does not apply. SMPG17 Circulation systems in shoreline areas should be limited to those that are shoreline dependent or would serve shoreline dependent uses or those that must pass through shoreline areas. The environment shall be protected from any significant adverse effects of circulation systems required in shoreline areas. The project proposal is not a circulation system and the goals and policies of SMPG17 do not apply. CONCLUSIONS The FWRC is specific about what constitutes a clear and imminent threat (i.e., within 3 years) and requires proposals that are an increase over what previously existed to be viewed as a new project. Therefore, this project is not a replacement but a new proposal. The proposal is to provide a combination of hard and soft armoring along a naturally vegetated slope on the beach. Based on information in all of the reports submitted by the applicant, the hard armoring is proposed to protect the stairs accessing the beach and only 150 ft of hard armoring is proposed to be constructed within the next 3 years. The reports also state that 340 ft of soft armoring is needed to protect the structures and roadway at the top of the slope. The information provided in the Soundview Consultants report under section 5.1.1, page 11 which discusses the no action alternative and states, "the eventual addition of structures onto the beach" does not mention a time frame for when this might occur. Additionally, the clubhouse is set back 75 ft from the top of the slope and given the distance from the top of the slope, would not be under imminent threat. Therefore, based on the report information only, 150 ft of hard armoring is the minimum size necessary to provide protection of the stairs and the beach access. The report information provided also states the height of the former bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft. The proposal being considered under the variance is to construct the bulkhead to elevation 16.4 ft. Since the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft and still failed during heavy storms, the height variance has merit for a bulkhead that is the minimum size necessary to provide protection. Therefore, based on the reports submitted by the applicant and the pertinent sections of the FWRC, the proposal should be modified to provide the minimum size necessary in an area where conservation of unarmored shorelines is recommended. 03/13/13 Y:Q36\062.010\R\Hrchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.dou LANDAU ASSOCIATES 28 ■ CLOSING STATEMENT This review for the shoreline improvements proposed at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way, Washington was conducted by Landau Associates staff, Edward J. Heavey, P.E. and Theresa M. Turpin, AICP. The reviewers conducted a site visit on November 2, 2012. This report was prepared for the use of the City of Federal Way. The report is based on our understanding of the FWRC and the reports submitted by the applicant to the City of Federal Way. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. TMT/EJH/jrc REFERENCES Cultural Resource Consultants. 2012. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishops of Seattle. July 31. Ecology. 2010. Focus on Shoreline Armoring, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Healthy Shorelines Equal A Healthy Puget Sound. 10-06-004. Washington State Department of Ecology. February. ESA Adolfson. 2007. Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for City of Federal Way, June. GeoResources 2012. Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle July 31. Soundview Consultants Report. 2012. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. August 2. Yeager Associates. 2012. Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. August 2012. Yelp, Inc. 2012. The Alex J Brunett Retreat Center.. htiRJ/www yelp.coin/bi7Jtlie-alex-j-brunett-retreat- center-federal-wa atb alias: AboutThisBizBig/ u :archbisbo a20brunelt%20 alisades%20retreat %20center. December 26. 03/13/13 YA236\062.010 MArchbishop Shoreline final synopsis.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 29 Ph. 253-896-1011 Fx. 253-896-2633 Archdiocese of Seattle 710 _ 9th Avenue Seattle, WA 98106 (206) 382-4370 Attention: Mr. Ed Foster eoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 July 31, 2012 Rev September 2, 2013 RESUBMITTED S E P 112013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Updated Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Job No: ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Federal Way File#: 12-103812-00-SH INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geologic hazards assessment for the restoration of the existing shoreline access stairway and the construction of conventional shoreline erosion protection. The proposed shoreline erosion protection will consist of a combination of an hard armor (rock bulkhead) and soft shore stabilization. The location of the site, 4700 SW Dash Point Road, is shown on the attachE:d Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you, our February 6, 2012 site visit, our past experience in the site area, and our understanding of the City of Federal Way's municipal code. Prior to writing our July 2012 report, we understood that you had a pre -application meeting with the City and they are requiring a geotechnical engineering report to address the Federal Way Critical Areas ordinance. This updated report addresses comments in the February 27, 2013 Third Party Review prepared by Landau Associates and June 10, 2013 email correspondence from David Pater, Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). This report also addresses items discussed during our May 23, 2013 site visit with the DOE's David Pater and Hugh Shipman, and City of Federal Way's Janet Shull and Isaac Conlen, and our subsequent June 12, 2013 meeting with the City's personnel. The existing beach access stairs and pathway consist of a series of stairs and landings supported by driven timber piles. The lower portion of the stairs has been undermined and damaged by a shallow slope failure that resulted from toe erosion of the shoreline bluff area below. The damaged portion of stairs has lost structural support, been rotated and is sliding down the slope towards the beach area. This portion of the stairway is currently in an unsafe and therefore are in an unusable condition. s related to the erosion of the shoreline bluff by As indicated above, the slope failure i he lower portion of the slope consist of fine to tidal and wave action. The soils exposed in t medium sand that is extremely susceptible to erosion. In addition, these soils have low cohesion values which result in rapid upslope regression with the loss of lateral support. We understand that there was an old barge/pier and timber pile bulkhead at the toe of the slope. Based on our site observations and discussions with you, the timber pile bulkhead was Archo'tSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 2 breached during significant winter storm events of 2011/2012 by large waves and tidal influences which eroded the soils from the toe of the shoreline bluff, causing the upslope failure and damage to the stairway. Based on our observations, subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering analysis, we recommend 190 feet of new hard armor (rock bulkhead) extend east from the west property line. This distance should be adequate to protect the existing stairs. Continuing east from the hard armoring, we recommend that a new soft shore stabilization system approximately 220 feet in length be installed to mitigate wave and tidal erosion below the portion of the bluff down slope of the fire lane, where several area of active shoreline erosion and bluff regression were observed. The purpose of our services was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site as a basis for assessing potential adverse impacts to and from the slopes located within the site area. We understand that because of the height and inclination of the slopes in the vicinity of the site, an assessment is being required by the City of Federal Way to address the Critical Areas Ordinance for Geologically Hazardous Areas (Chapter 19.160 and Chapter 15.10). Because a combination of hard armoring and soft -shore stabilization are proposed, this report also addresses City of Federal Way Municipal Code 15.05.050. Specifically, our scope of services for the project included the following: 1. Conducting a geologic reconnaissance of the site area; 2. Exploring the subsurface conditions across the site by excavating a series shallow borings with a hand -portable Aker drill rig; 3. Collecting select soil samples from the explorations and conduct laboratory tests, as appropriate; 4. Addressing the City of Federal Way Critical Areas Ordinance discussed above; 5. Providing our opinion regarding the cause of the recent failure and mitigating against future failures; 6. Providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding construction of a replacement rock bulkhead; 7. Discussing the cost benefit and "life expectancy" of a rock bulkhead versus soft shore stabilization techniques, as well as a discussion on how much of the property waterfront should be covered by protective measures; 8. Providing recommendations to repair and stabilize the existing stairs; 9. Providing recommendations to repair the recent failure using geotextile fabrics and vegetation; 10. Providing recommendations regarding slope and vegetation maintenance on the upper part of the bluff, near the existing fire lane; and 11. Preparing a written Geotechnical and Design Report summarizing our site observations and conclusions, and our geotechnical recommendations and design criteria, along with the supporting data. SITE CONDITIONS The subject parcel is located in the Lakota area of Federal Way, Washington. The parcel is rectangular in shape and generally measures 708 feet wide (east to west) by 2,200 deep (north to south) and encompasses approximately 35 acres. The parcel is bounded by existing single family residences on the south and southwest, by wooded areas on the east and west, and by Dumas Bay on the north, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 2 The Palisades Retreat Center was renovated in 2001. Permits obtained from the City of Federal Way for the remodel required the upgrading of the fire lane (in both width and surfacing) as part of the building permit requirements. Prior to the ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 3 improvements, the fire lane consisted of a narrow dirt road/path. As part of the permit requirements, the City required time fire lane to be Paved and widened. In our opinion, these improvements to the fire lane, and the requirement by the City athat fire lane be improved, makes the fire lane an appurtenant structure tothe minbuilding. The attached Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas aerial photographs show the location of the retreat center and fire lane dating back at least the 1077. The trail extending from the fire lane to the wooden stairs, and the wooden stairs themselves, are visible in the these older photographs. In addition to the upland structures, there is an old timber pile bulkhead, old wooden barge, two 3-timber pile "dolphins", and a rubber tire bulkhead along the shoreline below the retreat center. The site is located on the north margin of the Federal way glacial upland area. The southern portion of the lot is fairly flat to gently sloping to the east and north. The northern portion of the site includes a steep shoreline bluff with inclinations of greater than 00 percent with a total relief of 170 vertical feet. The upper portion of the bluff consists of a 25 to 35- foot tall near vertical head scarp from a prehistoric landslide. The head scarp is situated as close as 10 feet to the fire lane near the east side of the retreat center. A lower, secondary historic head scarp is visible in the central portion of the bluff (east of the stairs). Total topographic relief across the parcel is on the order of 180 feet. A site plan with surveyed topography that shows the existing structures, topography, and approximate limits of the old historic head scarps is included as Figure 3. Vegetation on the site consists of wooded recreation areas. No springs or seepage was observed at the time of our site visit. Evidence of surficial erosion as soil creep was observed on the shoreline bluff face at the time of our site visit. Evidence of past slope erosion was observed east of the subject site. Activelongoing tidal erosion was observed at the toe of the shoreline Fluff at the site at the time of our visit. The erosion has resulted in significant undercutting of the toe of the shoreline bluff that has regressed upslope as a shallow or surficial landslide or slough. Toe erosion is visible in numerous locations along the shoreline below the Palisades Retreat Center. Beginning at the western property line, the more recent sloughing from the 2011/2012 winter extends from about 35 west of the western property line approximately 80 feet to near the eastern end of the old timber pile bulkhead. A narrow 15 foot scour area and failure is located east of where the stairs daylight onto the beach. Continuing east from the stairs, there are three distinct areas where toe erosion has resulted in sloughsthatrain a fr mfeeeast 30 to 0 feet in width and extend up the bluff about 40 to 50 px55 to 60-foot lo�1g, 14 to 18-foot old barge, toe erosion has resulted in an approximate tall, near -vertical exposure of advance outwash. The vertical outcropping is the result of toe erosion and calving of the dense native soils. The eastern margin of the vertical outcropping transitions to an approximate 160400t long slump that has regressed upslope about 50 feet. These areas are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 3. Site Soils The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)Web Soil Survey for King County maps the soils underlying the flatter, upland portion of the site as Alderwood gravelly glacial till, form on slopes of fi sandy loam. The Alderwood soils are derived from sandy percent, and have a "moderate" erosion hazard. The more steeply sloping shoreline bluff 15 portion of the site is mapped as the Alderwood/Kitsap soils. These soils are derived from a variety of glacial till and glacial-lacustrine soils that from on slopes steeper than 45 degrees and have a "severe" erosion hazard. An excerpt of the SCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 4. ArchAeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 4 Site Geology The Geologic Map of the Tacoma North 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Pierce County, Washington (in review) indicates the site underlain by Vashon advance outwash (Qva). The advance outwash soils were deposited during the most recent Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. Advance outwash deposits consist of a poorly sorted, lightly stratified mixture of sand and gravel that may contain localized deposits of clay and silt that were deposited by meltwater streams emanating from the advancing ice mass, and were subsequently overridden. As such, the advance outwash and underlying pre - Olympia deposits are considered overconsolidated and exhibits high strength and low compressibility characteristics. The upper, exposed surfaces of these soils have weathered to a loose to medium dense condition since their original deposition. No areas of mass wasting or landslide deposits are shown on the geologic map. An excerpt of the above referenced map is included as Figure 5. The Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas maps the slope stability of the flatter, upland portion of the site as `stable". The steep shoreline bluff is mapped as "unstable" because of the height and ir)cVnations of the bluff slopes. An area of historic recent slides (Urs) is shown on the east side of the site, while an unstable old slide (Uos) is mapped west of the subject parcel. A copy of the Coastal Atlas is included as Figure 6. Oblique aerial photographs from the Coastal Atlas from 1977 to 2006 are attached as Figures 7a through 7d. Subsurface Explorations On May, 23, 2012, a field geologist from GeoResources, LLC was onsite and monitored the drilling of three hollow stem auger borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. The locations of the borings were selected by GeoResources personnel in the field based on the observed slope and wall failures, along with site access limitations. The boring locations were subsequently located by the site surveyor and are shown on the attached Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 3. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), a copy of which is attached as Figure 10. Representative soil samples obtained from the boring were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to a laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed necessary. Each boring was then backfiiled with bentonite chips per the WDOE guidelines. Soil samples were obtained at 2'/2- to 5-foot depth intervals in accordance with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as per the test method outline by ASTM:D-1586. This method consists of driving a standard 2-inch-diameter split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The attached Boring Logs describe the vertical sequence of soils encountered at each boring location. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we estimated the contact depth based on drilling conditions and cuttings. The boring logs also indicate the observed blow count, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample from the boring. Where encountered, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. The borings drilled as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions can vary across the site. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variation would not become evident until additional Archot5eaule Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 5 explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. However, based on our experience in the area and extent of prior explorations in the area it is our Opinion that the soils encountered in the borings are generally representative of the soils at the site. Subsurface Conditions Our borings encountered fairly uniform subsurface conditions that varied somewhat from the mapped stratigraphy. In general, our borings encountered fine to medium sand with minor amounts of silt that became increasingly dense with depth. We interpret these soils to be indicative of weathered advance outwash or ice contact deposits. Like the advance outwash, the ice contact deposits were deposited by meltwater streams but from the retreating continental ice mass. The encountered sand was typically loose down to a depth of 8 feet and became medium dense and then dense with increasing depth. The boring logs are included after Figure 10. Groundwater Conditions Significant groundwater seepage was not observed in any of our exploration hales at the time of excavation. While very slight seepage was observed atop the intermittent silt lenses encountered in our borings, no evidence of seeps or springs were note on the slope below our borings or the stairs. We expect that this water is seasonal perched groundwater. Perched groundwater typically develops when the vertical infiltration of precipitation through a more permeable soil is slowed at depth by a deeper, less permeable soil type. We expect that perched groundwater may develop seasonally atop the denser deposits. Based on the observed mottling and nature of the near surface soils, we anticipate fluctuations in the local groundwater levels will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and site utilization. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Ordinance for Geologically Hazardous Areas (Chapter I9.05.0707G119.160, and Chapter 15.10) state "geologically hazardous areas shall mean areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, landsliding, seismic or other geological events, are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns." The Revised Code of Federal Way is copied In italics, while comments to the code are immediately following the code. Erosion Hazard Areas per Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.05.070.G(1) The City of Federal Way code defines erosion hazard areas as `those areas having a "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow." The USDA NRCS has mapped the steely shoreline bluff portion of the site as Ald erwood/ Kits ap soils. Theses soils have a 'severe" hazard of water erosion when exposed. Therefore, an active erosion hazard does occur along the steep shoreline bluff portion of the parcel. Landslide Hazard Areas per Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.05.070.G(2) The Federal Way City Code defines landslide hazard areas as "those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including but not limited to the following areas: a. Any area with a combination of.- 1. Slopes greater than 15 percent, Archof'Seattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 6 2. Permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock, 3. Springs or groundwater seeps. b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. c. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. d. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding. e. Areas that have a "severe" limitation for building site development because of slope conditions, according to the USDA SCS. f. Those areas mapped as Class U (Unstable), Uos (Unstable old slides), and Urs (unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology. g. Slopes having a gradient steeper than 80 percent subject to rock fall during seismic shaking" From the above listed indicators we offer the following comments. Evidence of active and historic landslide activity was observed at the site during our numerous site visits. The larger areas listed as head scarps on the site appear to be older, historic failures, while the active areas appear limited to the lower, shoreline portion of the bluff. These active areas are consistent with toe erosion that undercuts the lower portion of the bluff, resulting in regressive failures extending up slope. We have approximately located the areas of active and historic movement on the attached Site Plan, Figure 3. We observed slopes steeper than 15 percent but observed no evidence of seeps or springs on the slopes west of the existing stairs. No hydrophilic vegetation, indicative of seeps, were noted in the area of the larger, historic failure east of the stairs. No adverse or intersecting contacts are mapped in the vicinity of the site. The AlderwoodlKitsap soils are listed by the USDA NRCS as being "very limited" for site development because of slopes, but not "severe". No planes of weakness or rockfall hazards were observed at the site. The DOE Coastal Atlas maps the stability of the site as stable. Based on our observations and literature review, the site has several of the above landslide hazard indicators on or within 25 feet of the site. In our opinion, the recent slope failure below the beach access stairs was caused by toe erosion and undercutting as a result of wave and tidal actions. We recommend that the active erosion and the related slope stability hazards in this area be mitigated by constructing a new rock bulkhead landward of the existing deteriorating and breached timber bulkhead, and the old wooden barge that was previously protecting the shoreline bluff area. We further recommend that the rock bulkhead extents from the western property line approximately 190 feet to the east. This extends across the several areas of recent failures identified on the attached Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 3. The recommendation for 190 feet of new rock bulkhead, as identified on Figure 3, was determined based on our evaluation of the site conditions at the locations described as follows: Sta 0+00 to 0+25: Beginning at the west property line (sta. 0+00) and extending to sta. 0+25, the existing shoreline is currently unprotected. This stretch of the shoreline is immediately west of the old timber bulkhead. Wave and tidal energy has resulted in toe erosion and bluff regression that extended to within a few feet of the upper, elevated portion of the existing stairway. The native sand is in a loose condition and is very susceptible to wave and tidal erosion along this ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 7 stretch. Without toe protection the ongoing erosion will result in bluff regression that will undermine the upper stairway Within the next 3 years. Sta 0+25 to 0+68: This portion of the shoreline is where the old timber pile bulkhead is located. The old timer bulkhead will be replaced by a rock bulkhead to constructed at the toe of the shoreline bluff (behind the old timber pile bulkhead). This portion of the shoreline is also being actively eroded. The native sand is in loose condition and is very susceptible to wave and tidal erosion along this stretch. Toe erosion and associated bluff regression has already undermined the central and lower portions of the stairs, rendering them unusable. Without toe protection, this portion of the stairs will likely collapse within the next three years. Sta 8+88 to 0+88: This portion of the shoreline is currently protected by an old rubber tire bulkhead structure that supports where the stairs land on the beach. The western side of this stretch is being scoured from where the wave and tidal energy has penetrated behind the timber bulkhead. The rock bulkhead will replace the old tires with a more habitat friendly material. if the tires are removed and not replaced with a rock bulkhead, the lower portion of the stairs will be in imminent danger of failure within 3 years given the loose condition of the native sand in this portion of the shoreline. Sta 0+80 to 1+25: This portion of the shoreline is where the remnants of the old timber barge is located. The shoreline along this stretch was {protected from wave and tidal scour by the old barge. As the barge has started to decay and crumble, the toe of the bluff is not longer protected. Scour has resulted in over - steepening of the toe of bluff along most of this sections. Trees above the over - steepened area are becoming undermined. This portion is also where the realigned stairway will be . The stairs will be moved eastward to this location because of the extent of erosion and bluff regression currently undermining the stairs. The native sand transitions for the loose, sands encountered further to the west to a more medium dense to dense sand with some lamination. Without toe protection, the lower portion of the realigned stairway will be at risk of failure and undermining within 3 years. Sta 1+25 to 1+98: This unprotected section of the stair and trail has numerous areas where the toe of the bluff is being scoured and over -steepened. These surficial failures are located immediately downslope of the upper trail and an older historic slide area. Impacts from a northerly winter storm during a high or king tide event would result in a series of failures along this stretch of the shoreline. From the east end of the proposed harm armor (rock bulkhead), we recommend that a new soft shore stabilization system approximately 220 feet in length be installed to mitigate wave and tidal erosion for this more vegetated and stable portion of the shoreline bluff at the site. The soft shore stabilization will not completely stop the toe erosion like the recommended hard armor bulkhead to the west, but will greatly reduce the rate of toe erosion across the portion of the bluff below the fire lane. The soft shore stabilization will consist of large woody debris that is appropriately anchored into the beach area. As previously stated, we observed evidence of active or ongoing landslide hazards on the site and within 25 feet of the site. It is our opinion that the recommended mitigation measures for the active erosion and landslide hazards at the site will address the potential hazards, and eliminate the need for any buffer or setback area. ArchoPSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 8 Seismic Hazards per Federal Way revised Code Chapter 19.05.070.G(3) The City of Federal Way Municipal Code defines seismic hazard areas as "those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater fable." mapped at the site, we interpret Based on our observation and the subsurface units the structural site conditions to correspond to a seismic Site Class "C" in accordance with Table 1613.5.2 in the 2006 18C (international Building Code) documents. This is based on the likely range of equivalent SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts for the soil types observed in the site area. These conditions were assumed to be representative for the conditions based on our experience in the vicinity of the site. These soils are not prone to liquefaction and do not constitute a seismic hazard area. Given the mapped stratigraphy of advance outwash, which was overridden by the giacial ice of the more recent Vashon stade of the Fraser Glaciation, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction in this area is minimal. Steep Slope Hazard per Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.05.070.G(4) The Federal Way City Code defines steep slope hazard areas as "those areas with a slope of 40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance. A slope is delineated by established its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief." The shoreline bluff meets the definition of a steep slope hazard. CONCLUSIONS Based on our observations and site evaluations, it is our opinion that a landslide hazard, erosion hazard area, seismic hazard area, and/or steep slope area exists on or within 25 feet of the site. The active landslide and erosion hazard areas have and continue to adversely affected the existing beach access stairs that extend from the retreat center area. The following sections provide our conclusions regarding the impacts of the hazards, methods to mitigate the hazards, and recommendations to stabilize the existing stairs. Shoreline Protection The existing retreat center is setback more than 200 feet from the current active shoreline area. However, the existing beach access is located within the active shoreline area, as well as designated landslide and steep slope areas. The existing shoreline bulkhead has been damaged by decay and beach processes, and was recently breached. According to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC 15.05.050), shoreline protective measures are allowed provided relevant decisional and technical criteria are met. As described above and as observed onsite, the active erosion that resulted when the existing bulkhead failed, caused significant erosion of the soils in the toe of the shoreline bluff. Subsequently, during the 2011/2012 winter storms, a portion of the bluff below the beach access stairs failed as a result of loss of lateral support and over -steepening caused by the toe erosion. Toe erosion and subsequent sloughing of the slope above the toe erosion (bluff regression) has continued in both the exposed areas from the 2011/2012 storm, as well as in new areas along the shoreline below the retreat center. The construction of a conventional large rock bulkhead and soft shore stabilization in the adjacent area will significantly reduce the active wave and tidal erosion and associated bluff regression/sloughing. The City of Federal Way requirements for shoreline modifications, including both soft and hard Archo{Seattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 9 armoring, are addressed below. The actual code is copied in italics, while comments to the code are in bold. Federal Way Coale 15.05.050 Shoreline Modification (1) Shoreline stabilization. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment. Hard armoring (e.g., bulkheads and riprap) is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit in the urban conservancy environment• Soft -shore stabilization may be permitted in the urban conservancy environment. Shoreline stabilization proposals shall address the following. As currently proposed, and as being modified based on the recent review comments by the City of Federal and DOE, this report supplements the following applications: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing timber pile bulkhead with a new rock bulklhead; o Shoreline Variance to allow the rock bulkhead to exceed the bulkhead height requriement of the allowed 1-ft above Mean Higher High Water (MNNW); a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct a section of soft shore stabilization and to repair/replace a portion of the existing stairs damaged in the 2011/2012 winter storm events. (a) Shoreline stabilization, including bulkheads, shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the city's shorelines. In order for shoreline stabilization to be permitted the city must find that: (i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified professional, that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and the urgency associated with the specific situation; and (y) Soft -shore stabilization alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization, gravel berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioritized over structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" effective alternative shall be utilized; and (iii) In the case of proposed hard armoring stabilization solutions (e.g., bulkheads and riprap), erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to a legally established primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water - dependent development, ecological restorationitoxic clean-up remediation projects, or public improvements; and (iv) In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilization is located landward of the ordinary high water mark, and (y) The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements; and (vi) The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment transport are minimized to the greatest extent possible; and (vii) Shoreline stabilization shall not have an adverse impact on the property of others and shall be designed so as not to create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere; and (viii) Shoreline stabilization shall not significantly interfere with normal surface andlor subsurface drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using an approved filter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage of surface and groundwater without infernal erosion of rime material, and (ix) Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 10 (x) Use of chemically treated wood is prohibiters for any shoreline stabilization proposal within fresh water lake shorelines; and (xi) Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and (xii) Revegetation with native plants is required as part of the shoreline stabilization project; and (xiii) Shoreline stabilization shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological functions. As outlined in this report, it is our professional opinion that the shoreline below the stairs is actively being eroded as a result of wave and tidal energy, which is why shoreline modifications including soft and hard armoring is being recommended. (i) Based on a review of available shoreline photographs and observations since our initial site visit, we estimate the rate of erosion for the shoreline to be on the order of 1 to 2 inches per year. However, the actual erosion is likely manifested in more substantial failures of 1 to 3 feet every 10 to 15 years. (ii) The amended proposal to protect the shoreline below the retreat center is to use a combination of 190-'feet of hard armoring and 220-feet ❑f soft - shore stabilization. We are proposing the use of soft -shore stabilization measures where feasible, but the amount of active erosion ongoing immediately below the stairway requires the use of hard -armor to adequately protect the structure. (iii) The hard armoring will be constructed immediately below the existing stairway. Portions of the stairway are undermined, and other portions are in imminent threat of failure (failure within 3 years). Both the City and DOE agree that the stairs are in imminent threat of failure. (iv) The section of hard armoring is proposed to be at and above the ordinary high-water mark. As discussed with both the DOE and City personnel, it is common practice of the construction of rock bulkhead to be shown at or above ordinary high water, but to possible encroach below the OHW line as a result of construction practices. (v) As shown on Figure 3 and the attached site photographs, the active and ongoing toe erosion and bluff regression below the stairs is extending from off -site to the west approximately 100 feet to the east (just east of the old timber bulkhead). A 30-foot section of shoreline below the stair landing is currently protected with an old rubber -tire bulkhead. We recommend removing this 3o-foot section and replacing with a new rock bulkhead. The presence of the rubber tire bulkhead has prevented erosion along this section of the shoreline. Because of damage to the stairs as a result of the toe erosion, the repaired stair alignment will extend further to the east, across another 60-foot section of active shoreline erosion. The sum of the three areas totals 190 feet of proposed new bulkhead. In our opinion, and as shown by the amount of damage/erosion since the 2011/2012 winter storms, the 190-feet is the minimum necessary hard armor bulkhead required to protect the stairs. We also recommend that 220-feet of soft -shore stabilization be installed extending to the east. The soft shore stabilization should mitigatelreduce the ongoing toe erosion and protect the slope below the fire lane between the retreat center and the shoreline Muff. The 190-feet of hard armoring and 220-feet of soft -shore stabilization are a significant ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 11 reduction from the originally proposed 380 feet of hard armoring and 340 feet of soft -shore stabilization. (vi) The proposed hard armoring and soft -shore stabilization will have minimal impact on the current sediment transport. As identified by the Coastal Zone Atlas, the site is located in of a divergent drift zone. Sediment that enters the shoreline environment as a result of sloughing and erosion will continue to do so on the west and east side of the modified shorelines. Also, the soft -shore stabilization will not completely stop the toe erosion, so sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment over the soft shore stabilization. (vii) The proposed hard armor bulkhead will extend to the west property line. The new bulkhead will be angled into the adjacent bluff to prevent scour and additional erosion on the adjacent parcel. To the east, the hard armor bulkhead will transition to the soft -shore stabilization and then transition to un-modified shoreline on the retreat center property. These two transition points should not result in additional or excessive erosion. (viii) No seeps or spring were noted on the slope above the proposed hard armor or soft -shore stabilization. Both the hard armor and soft -shore stabilization are designed so that they do not hold or retain water. Seepage and sheet flow is able to flow through the rock of the hard armor and over the woody/vegetation of the soft -shore stabilization. Therefore, there will be no impact to the normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the water body. As shown on the standard rock bulkhead detail (Figure 8), a filter fabric will be placed between the native sand and chinking material behind the large rock. (ix) No new land will be created by the construction of the hard armor bulkhead or soft shore stabilization. (x) No chemically treated wood will be used. The proposal includes the removal of the old timber pile bulkhead and two 3-pile dolphins which was constructed with creosote wood timbers. (xi) To repeat the answer to item (x), no chemically treated wood will be used and existing creosote timber piles will be removed as part of the project. (xii) No vegetation will be disturbed as part of the construction of the bulkhead. However, repair and replacement of the stairs may result in loss of vegetation. All removed vegetation should be replaced with similar native vegetation. (xiii) In our opinion, as proposed, the project will not have an adverse affect on the existing ecological environment. The project will actually improve the local beach environmental by removing the old creosote timber piles, rubber tire bulkhead, and other debris on the beach. The City code further discusses shoreline modifications by stating that When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection 1 a of this section, the following standards shall apply. (i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters, or one foot in height above the elevation of ordinary high watermark on lakes, measured from grade on the water ward side of the bulkhead or structure; and Archof'Seattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 12 (H) When a bulkhead or other stabilization structure has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead or structure most be located at or landward of the ordinary high water mark. (M) Repair of an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is permitted provided that the repaired bulkhead or structure is not relocated further water ward or increased in height. (iv) if an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is made within one year of destruction. Additions to or increases it, size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. (v) Soft -shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted water ward of the ordinary high watermark. (vi) The project satisfies the provisions of FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b). As outlined in this report, it is our professional opinion that the shoreline below the stairs is actively being eroded as a result of wave and tidal energy, which is why shoreline modifications including soft and hard armoring are being recommended. 0) The DOE, City, and the design team discussed the code requirements relative to the bulkhead height. As discussed, the bulkhead height will be determined to provide adequate protection against overtopping and future erosion. We are proposing the height be about 2 feet above ordinary high water. We understand that both the City and DOE are supporting this variance request. (ii) The proposed hard armor bulkhead will not be located water ward ❑f the ordinary high water mark as indicated by Soundview Consultants. (iii) The proposed hard armor bulkhead will not be located water ward of the ordinary high water mark as indicated by Soundview Consultants. (iv) Given the age of the existing timber bulkhead, and amount of erosion occurring behind the timber bulkhead, we understand that both the DOE and City are determining the proposed rock bulkhead replacing the old timber bulkhead and extending east and west of the old timber bulkhead as new. As outlined herein, the proposed hard armor bulkhead has been sized to protect the stairs whiich have been demonstrated to be in imminent danger of failure within 3 years. (v) Soft -shoreline stabilization will be constructed at the toe of the slope, at or above ordinary high water mark as determined by Soundview Consultants. (vi) In our opinion, this report and the accompanying wetlands and biological assessment, as well as the multiple applications, demonstrate that the project satisfies the provisions of FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b). To summarize, the proposed shoreline stabilization project includes the use of both hard armor (rock bulkhead) and soft shore stabilization techniques. The hard armor will be constructed in the area of the recent slope failures below the stairs. and will provided the additional lateral support for the disturbed upslope area. The rock bulkhead area will ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 13 generally be located where the old timber pile bulkhead and old wooden barge are located. The existing older structures will be removed. Because the upslope area was previously disturbed, soft shore stabilization is not appropriate for this area Soft shore stabilization system (lags, stumps or root wads) will be placed/anchored at the toe of the shoreline bluff along portions of the site's shoreline. It is our opinion that the large woody debris, if adequately anchored, will provide sufficient moderate to long term erosion protection for that portion of the shoreline bluff toe. In order to provide for effective erosion control, the logs should be overlapped and anchored with appropriate materials that will prevent significant movement. It is our opinion the combination of hard armor and soft shore stabilization will have no significant adverse impacts on the adjacent parcels. Given the drift current directions (Figure 6), proximity of the stabilizing materials to the toe of the slope, and their location at or above the ordinary high water level; the stabilization will not result in erosion on the adjacent parcel. The hard armor will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe and thereby improve slope stability of the bluff area at the site and the adjacent areas. Effectively, this will significantly reduce, but not eliminate, the rate of bluff regression at the site. The use of soft shore stabilization meets all of the above listed criteria. As previously stated, the use of soft shore stabilization will not increase the rate of erosion on the adjacent or neighboring properties. Soft shore stabilization does not reflect waves or result in increase energy on the adjacent parcels. Large rock bulkheads also minimize wave energy reflection because of the open voids between the rocks. Instead, the soft armor slows the wave energy and traps sediments on the upland portions of the beach. Large Rock Bulkhead A large rockery rock bulkhead should be constructed of hard, dense, sound, and durable rock, free from seams, cracks, and other defects in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-13.7(1). Backfill materials for rockery walls should consist of quarry spalls or shot rock of the same quality. As shown on the attached details, the bottom course of all rocks should be founded in firm, unyielding soils at least 18 inches below the adjacent ground surface for protection from wave erosion, as well as sliding resistance. This is typically determined based on the location, fetch and energy of the site's shoreline. The subgrade soil for the bottom course of rocks should be excavated, as necessary, to ensure full contact between the rock and soil surfaces. We understand that the City uses a maximum rock bulkhead height of 1-foot above Mean High or Higher Water (MHHW). However, for the subject beach, this will result in the bulkhead getting overtopped during extreme high tides and storm events. As such, we recommend that the bulkhead extend a minimum of 2 to 4-feet above OHW as previously discussed with DOE and the City. This will exceed the maximum observed high tide elevation (14.6 feet MLLW) by approximately 1 foot and is addressed by the Shoreline Variance Application. Rockery rocks should be placed in uniformly decreasing sizes from the bottom of the bulkhead to the top, with a battered face no steeper than 1 H:6V. All rocks should be placed in running bond construction, with no continuous joint planes in vertical or lateral directions, and each rock should maintain at least two points of contact with adjacent rocks so that they are keyed together. The maximum void between adjacent rocks should be less than 6 inches as measured at the largest dimension of the void; voids larger than 6 inches should be keyed with chinking rocks to fill the void. To prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures, afree-draining Backfill material should be provided behind the entire rockery. We recommend the use of ballast rock (1- to 2- inch quarry spalls) for this purpose. This backfill should be placed behind each boulder course and should extend at least 12 inches behind the rockery. Because the bulkhead is to ArchoNeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 14 be constructed along a marine shoreline that includes a sand beach, the need for a perforated pipe is not needed. Atypical detail for a rock bulkhead is attached as Figure 8. Soft Shore Stabilization As stated, we recommend that the section of shoreline from about 190 to 410 feet west of the west property line be protected from wave and tidal erosion with a soft stabilization system (logs, stumps or root wads) placed/anchored at the toe of the shoreline bluff at the site. It is our opinion that the large woody debris, if adequately anchored, will provide sufficient long term erosion protection for the shoreline bluff toe. We understand that your contractor (Bay Marine) has proposed to use the existing large trees currently on the beach as the woody debris. In order to provide for effective erosion control, the logs should over lap and be anchored with appropriate materials (helical anchors, pins, or approved equivalent) that will prevent significant movement. A typical detail for a rock bulkhead is attached as Figure 9. It is our opinion that the anchored large woody debris will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe and thereby improve slope stability of the bluff area at the site and the adjacent areas. Effectively, this will reduce, but not eliminate, the rate of bluff regression at the site. The use of soft armor bulkhead will meet all of the above listed criteria. Trees from the site and currently on the beach may not be sized appropriately for use, so some of the soft shore stabilization material may need to be imported with the hard armor material. Pin Piling The replacement stairs will be supported by driven needle or pin piles, similar to the piling that supports the existing stairs. Pin piling consist of small diameter Schedule-40, galvanized, steel pipe that are driven into the underlying soils to refusal. The steel pipe diameters range from 2 to 6-inches. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 5 to 10 feet long and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip couplings, or butt welds as pile driving progresses. The new stairs will extend east from thO existing stairs at about elevation 58, and will extend down to about the same location where the stairs currently end. The approximate location and detail for the stairs is shown on the attached detail Figure 3. Based on site access issues, we expect that 3-inch pin piling will be utilized, preventing the use of larger, machine -mounted hammers. The 3-inch pin piles should be driven into the subgrade by means of at least a 901b pneumatic or hydraulic hammer. Regardless of diameter or installation method, we recommend that each pin pile be driven to a point of refusal defined as less than 1 inch of penetration during 1 minute of sustained driving, or to a rate determined by the contractor based on correlation tables with past driving and load testing. We anticipate that the pin piles will meet refusal in the underlying deeper, dense outwash encountered about 14 to 15 feet below grades. However, because refusal depths are difficult to predict and because soil conditions could vary significantly across the site, the contractor should be prepared for variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if rocks or other obstructions are encountered during pile -driving. When refusal has been achieved, the pin piles can be cut to a predetermined height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the pile cap, reinforcing bars with 90-degree bends can be welded to the top of the pile or, alternatively, the top of the pile can be splayed apart. A structural engineer should be responsible for designing the reinforced steel and foundation elements. In our opinion, a properly installed 3-inch-diameter pin piling driven to refusal (as defined above) will provide the following allowable axial capacities. These capacities assume ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 15 a minimum pile spacing (center to center) of six diameters. However the actual spacing should be determined by the structural engineer. Furthermore, the stated uplift capacity would be applicable only to needle piles that are installed with tension -resisting couplings. Design Parameter Static Compressive Capacity Transient Compressive Capacity Transient Uplift Capacity Allowable Values 3-inch-diameter 12,000 pounds 16,000 pounds 6,000 pounds Alternatively, if access for a small bobcat size machine is feasible, it may be more economic to utilize fewer, but larger diameter piling. A properly installed 4-inch-diameter or 6- inch-diameter needle pile driven to refusal (as defined above) will provide the following allowable axial capacities. These capacities assume a minimum pile spacing (center to center) of six diameters. Furthermore, the stated uplift capacities would be applicable only to needle piles that are installed with tension -resisting couplings. Design Parameter Static Compressive Capacity Transient Compressive Capacity Transient Uplift Capacity Allowable Value 4-1nch-diameter 20,000 pounds 26,000 pounds 13,000 pounds 6-inch-diameter 30,000 pounds 40,000 pounds 20,000 pounds ArchofSeattle Brunett GHA.r9_2 Rev September 2, 2013 Page 16 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the Archdiocese of Seattle and members of the design team for use in evaluating a portion of this project. Subsurface conditions described herein are based on our observations of exposed soils on the parcel. This report may be made available to regulatory agencies or others, but this report and conclusions should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions can vary over short distances and can change with time. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, should be understood. We have appreciated working for you an this project. Please do not hesitate to call at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC Keith Schembs, LEG Principal KSS:DCB:kss Um ID: ArchofSeattle 8runalt GHAr7 10 Attachments: Figure 1: Site Locatlon Map Figure 2: SEte Vidnily Plan Figure 3: Site and Expioratiori Plan Figure 4: SCS Sol] Survey Figure 5: USGS Geology Map Figure 6: Coastal Zane Allen Figure 7a= Oblique Anal Photograph Figufe 7b: Oblique Axial Photograph Figure7c:Obtique Arlal Photograph Figure 7d: Oblique Axial Photograph Figure 8: flock Bulkhead Delall Figure 9: Salt Share S€abillxation Figure 10: Sail Cles0cafion System Boring Logs B-1 through B-3 Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer 3 GeoResources, LLI 5007 Pacific Highway East, Sui Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Approximate Site Location Not to Scale Site Location Map Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Doc: Arch ofSeattle. B ru nett. F June 2012 _ Figure 1 lo 41 Ol 4 Z6 ;j IW W r Mr PROJECT AKbA . SCALE: 1"-30' A of RECENT SLIAI MHW (10.93') MHHW (11.81') O REBAR W/CAP +? LS 21402 } &HIGH TIMBER RETAIN WALL : -:. eta :• SLOPE VEGETATED __._•' Viz" (SEE NOTE 3) =` TOP OF SLOPE 200 � (N- l� SCALE 1 "=60' APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND B-1 NUMBER OF BORING S5� Ge®Res®u rces, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Ph: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 3 PILES 15'±TAI 1t l SU REBAR�W/CA SLOPE VEGETATE (SEE NOTE 3) CO— p O� Site & Exploration Plea Archdiocese of Seattle — Drunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Doc: ArchoifSeattle.Brunett.F July 2013 Figure 3 Approximate Site Location from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Surve Soil ma created Soil Name Parent Material Slopes Erosion Hazard f pe Cb Coastal Beaches Beach sand and ravel 1 - 5 None Severe AkF Alderwood Kitsa soils Glacial Till / Lacustrine >45 6 15 Moderate AaC Alderwood gravelly sand loam Sand Glacial Till - GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Hydrologic Soils Groul C Not to Scale NRCS SCS Soils Map Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Doc: Arch ofSeattle.Brunett.F { June 2012 Figure 4 Approximate Site Location (An excerpt from the Geologic Map of the Tacoma North 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Pierce County, Washington, in review) Geolkesources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Not to Scale USGS Geologic Map Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Doc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F June 2012 Figure 5 Approximate Site Location (map created from the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatias2001/viewer.htm) I -!A- Physical features 4e] Drift Cells Left to Right +f Rightto Left - — — Divergence Zone ...... NA.D Undefined GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Stable Intermediate Unstable C.� Unstable Recent Landslide Unstable Old Landslide LiE�il Modified Not to Scale Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Doc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F June 2012 Approximate Site Location 7126/2006 Photograph (map created from the Washington State department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatias2001 /viewer.htm) GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Department of Ecology Oblique Shoreline Photographs Archdiocese of Seattle - Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Doc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F June 2012 Figure 7aj Approximate Site Location 9/25/2000 Photograph (map created from the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas2001 /viewer.htm) GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Department of Ecology Oblique Shoreline Photographs Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington June 2012 1 Figure 7b Doc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F Approximate Site Location 5/19/1993 Photograph (map created from the Washington State department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas website at https:/Ifortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas2001 /viewer.htm) Department of Ecology GeoResources, LLC Oblique Shoreline Photographs 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center Fife, Washington 98424 4700 SW Dash Point Road Phone: 253-896-1011 Federal Way, Washington Fax: 253-896-2633 Doc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F June 2012 LFigure 7c J Approximate Site Location 6/2611977 Photograph (map created from the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas200l /viewer.htm) GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Department of Ecology Oblique Shoreline Photographs Archdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington June 2012 Figure 7d { V Doc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F J HEIGHT (H) IN FEET 0-4' 4-6' a a (UPPER HALF) CD z MIN ROCK SIZE 1-MAN 3-MAN N AVG ROCK DIMENSION 10-12" 28-36" U) v (LOWER HALF) 0 MIN ROCK SIZE 2-MAN 5-MAN AVG ROCK DIMENSION 18-24" 48-54" 1-1/2 MA 1 F,r>^Il' ❑ ❑ ❑ -III I 1-I 1 E 1 OR GREATER — ll—ll 1111_ 8 Q ❑ Imo! II 1= I SLOPE AS NECESSARY ❑ll=1 I I i- �` � FOR STABILITY DURING ll-lli-il ,,. lr =111- CONSTRUCTION CD � � 12" MIN Q ALL LOC CRUSHED GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS OR BETTER PER W.S.D.O.T. SEC. 9-03.12(2) OR BETTER DNON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 11�-�_ MINIMUM 6"0 PERFORATED DRAIN SL_ �f p PIPE WITH SUITABLE OUTLET TO BE FINISH 0% 5% INSTALLED. MUST BE AS LOW AS GRADE 24" (mi) POSSIBLE AND NO HIGHER THAN 2 —�� THE SUBGRADE - I I I-ll�LL—LC=T� o p CRUSHED GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS PER W.S.D.O.T. SEC. �rl-aaaao •�— ono �as �,0 _I 9-03.12(4) OR BETTER B» 4" NOTE: CONSTRUCTEDROCK WALL TO BE PLACE ROCKERY ON FIWITH ASSOCIATIONWITSOCIATION OFROCK RY CONTR ��ORSANCE BEARING PAD OF 1 - 4" (ARC) GUIDELINES CRUSHED ROCK MIN. 12" THICK SKETCH Fig 8 8 PROJECT NAME: Archdiocese of Seattle GeoResources, 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 16 PHONE. (253)1011 Fife, WA 98424 t 7896- 2633 I W Conc Chonnel.dwg 02 Aug 2012 — 3:24 pm siuorls PROJECT NO: BY: DATE: Brunett Retreat Center KSS 8-2-12 CONSTRUCTION FIELD SKETCH: Rock Bulkhead Federal Way, WA LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LOGS) ELEVATION /SECTION BURIED ROCK 18" MIN DIM, -- LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PLAN (LOGS) 12" MIN DIA PROJECT NAME: Archdiosese of Seattle 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 16 PHONE: (253)896-1011 Fife, WA 98424 FAX: (253)896-2633 G�OT�CI--I1\iIC�.L EXTEND JUTE 4 VERT FEET ABOVE OHW UTE MAT SCREW ANCHOR, 8 INCH DIAMETER HELIX JOSLIN PART NO 88165 OR EQUAL PENETRATE MIN 48" IN SOIL, SPACED PER DETAIL BELOW, MIN 2 PER LOG (TYP) PROJECT NO. Brunett Retreat Center SKETCH NO: FIG 9 BY: DATE: bkc 7/22/2013 CONSTRUCTION FIELD SKETCH: SOFT SHORE STABILIZATION FEDERAL WAY, WA SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL COARSE GRAINED More than 50% SOILS Of Coarse Fraction GRAVEL Retained on WITH FINES No. 4 Sieve SAND CLEAN SAND More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction SAND Passes WITH FINES No. 4 Sieve SILT AND CLAY I INORGANIC FINE GRAINED ORGANIC SOILS Liquid Limit Less than 50 SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC More than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve Liquid Limit 50 or more ORGANIC HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: 7. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on interpretatlon of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and or test data. GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 1 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND ML SILT CL CLAY OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT PT PEAT SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: Dry- Absence of moisture, dry to the touch Moist- Damp, but no visible water Wet- Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table Soil Classification System ►rchdiocese of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center 4700 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington )oc: ArchofSeattle.Brunett.F Figure 10 Project No: Arch DioceseofSeattle. B ru nett Borehole Number: B-1 GeoResoulrces, `-LC Project: Slope Assessment: Stair Repair Project Manager: KSS 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste Logged: KSS/RMP 16 Client: Archdiocese of Seattle Lo gg Fife, Washington 90424 Site Location: 4700 SW Dash Pt Rd, Federal Way, WA Poring Location: —15' above shoreline erosion failure SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE WDescription ;z ;_ 0 0 c Xm Ground Surface 0 0 .... SP 1 Light brown fine to medium grained SAND (loose,moist) 2 3 1 4 4 ", Y ti+ --SP---------------------------------- ---- 5 "i'i: light brown fine to medium SAND with gravel 6`;�y VR- ? grained (medium dense, moist) 2 71 �n 0 Standard Penetration Test (blows/foot) o a ° 0 10 20 30 40 50 L__--.I 1 175 20 ® "1-_W " — 3 y SP Medium grained SAND with color -- -- 0 ,; banding, no observed laminations 27 0 (medium dense, moist) 2 J 3 4a 4 --- - --------------- - --------- 1 SP ,�;�i� ;�f Fine SAND laminated with trace - 5 .:.:. _���{'i .: ; silt beds (dense, moist) 31 10 6 7' �._ 9 h �` 55�• 0 6 s: r Drilled By: CN Drilling Datum: - Drill Method: Aker: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: May, 23, 2012 Sampling Method: 2 inch o.d. split spoon Remarks Dry hole, no water Hole Size: 6 inches outer diameter Sheet: 1 of 2 Project No: Arch DioceseofSeattle. Bru nett Borehole Number: B-1 Project: Slope Assessment: Stair Repair Project Manager: KSS Client: Archdiocese of Seattle Logged: KSS/RMP Site Location: 4700 SW Dash Pt Rd, Federal Way, WA QnA nn i nrnfinn: —15' above shoreline erosion failure GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Drilled By: CN Drilling Datum: - Hole Size: 6 inches outer diameter Drill Method: Aker: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: May, 23, 2012 Sampling Sam lin Method: 2 inch o.d. split spoon Sheet: 2 of 2 Project No: Arch DioceseofSeattle.Brunett Borehole Number: B-2 Ge®Resoulrces, LLC Project: Slope Assessment: Stair Repair Project Manager. KSS 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste Logged: Client: Archdiocese of Seattle Lo gg RMP 16Fife, Washington 90424 Site Location: 4700 SW Dash Pt Rd, Federal Way, WA Boring Location: midslope, between upper and mid. set of stairs SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAI Standard Penetration a) Test (blows/foot) W o Description 10 20 30 40 50� ❑ ❑ c) Ground Surface 0 0 --- ,,. Topsoil ---------------------------------- ------------ 1 SP Light brown fine to medium 2 grained SAND (loose,moist) 3 1 4 4 - - - - --SP ---------- -- --- -- - - ---- -- ------ Light brown fine to medium 5-grained SAND with gravel ' i' (medium dense, moist) 6_- 2 7 5 : ` as above, medium grained sand .'; with fine grained sand laminations 8 9 - Sf' 3 1 Medium to fine grained SAND with [0 laminations (medium dense, 11 moist) 12 4 Alternating beds of Fine SA 'JAL. moist to wet) 2 30 0 6 10C1q 16 50 ' 20 0 23 0 -- F-1 25 Drilled By: CN Drilling Datum: - Drill Method: Aker: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: May, 23, 2012 Sampling Method: 2 inch o.d. split spoon a Remarks Perched groundwater at 17' to 19' depth: visible water in ample at 20 feet depth 1 Hole Size: 6 inches outer diameter Sheet: 1 of 2 Project No: ArchDioceseofSeattle.Brunett Borehole Number: B-2 Project: Slope Assessment: Stair Repair Project Manager: KSS Client: Archdiocese of Seattle Logged: RMP site Location: 4700 SW Dash Pt Rd, Federal Way, WA Rorina Location: midslope, between upper and mid. set of stairs Ge®Resources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste 16 Fife, Washington 96424 Drilled By: CN Drilling Datum: - I Hole Size: 6 inches outer diameter Drill Method: Aker: Hollow Stem Auger 1 Drill Date: May, 23, 2012 Sampling Sam lin Method: 2 inch o.d. split spoon Sheet: 2 of 2 Project No: Arch DioceseofSeattl e. B ru nett Borehole Number: B-3 Project: Slope Assessment: Stair Repair Project Manager. KSS Client: Archdiocese of Seattle Logged: RMP Site Location: 4700 SW Dash Pt Rd, Federal Way, WA Boring Location: —10 below top of slope/firelane GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste 16 Fife, Washington 90424 Drilled By: CN Drilling Datum: - I Drill Method: Aker: Hollow Stem Auger Hole Size: 6 inches outer diameter r Drill Date: May, 23, 2012 Sampling Method: 2 inch o.d. split spoon Sheet: 1 of 1 CITY OF Federal Way Department of Community Development Services FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement Federal Way File No: 12-103816-00-SE (Related File Nos: 12-103812-00-SU, 12-103814-00-SU,-and 12-103815-00-SU) NOTE: The purpose of this staff evaluation is to provide technical staff evaluation of the proposed action; supplement information contained in the environmental checklist and expanded studies; provide technical information unavailable to the applicant; correct inaccurate information; and recommend measures to the responsible official to mitigate identified impacts. Technical reports and attachments referenced herein may not be attached to all copies of this evaluation. Copies of reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed, and/or obtained by contacting Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, Community and Economic Development Department, 33325 8"' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003. Phone: 253-835-2644. I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The applicant is proposing replacement of a 45-foot wood/creosote bulkhead with a new rock bulkhead of 100 feet in length, construction of new soft shore stabilization of 90 feet in length (two sections), and repair/replacement of a portion of an existing stair tower damaged in recent storm events. Applicant also proposes removal of derelict dolphin structure, barge, rubber tire bulkhead, and other debris (Exhibit A, Reduced Scale Site Plan). II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Tower Applicant: Ed Foster, 206-382-4851 Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 9"' Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Agent: Dale Yeager, 250-593-9384 Yeager Associates 14323 116"' Avenue East Puyallup, WA 98374 Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023; King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1 12103-9010 and 112103-9029, Parcel Size: 36 acres (1,568,160 square feet) Zoning: Suburban Estates (SE) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single -Family Low -Density The following technical information was submitted as part of the application for the proposed development. • November 25, 2013, revised SEPA Checklist signed by Frank Lumar. • July 10, 2013, revised, Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair, prepared by Yeager Associates. • July 2013, revised, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archibishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs, prepared by Soundview Consultants. • July 5, 2013, Geologic Hazards Assessment Archibishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration, prepared by GeoResources. • July 31, 2012, Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. ■ November 26, 2013, revised Site Plan, prepared by Broderick Architects, Soundview Consultants, Triad Associates and Yeager Associates. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Analysis of Environmental Checklist Following are staff responses to the elements of the environmental checklist (Exhibit C) indicating whether or not city staff concurs with the applicant's response to the checklist item, or staff clarification or amendment of the response. A. BACKGROUND 1-10. Concur with the checklist. 11. Description does not reflect most recently revised proposal. The rock bulkhead will be 100 feet in length rather than 190 feet. The soft shore stabilization will be 90 feet in length rather than 220 feet. Specifically, 25 feet of soft shore armoring is proposed on the west end of the bulkhead and 65 feet of soft shore armoring on the east end of the 100 foot rock bulkhead. Additionally, the proposal includes removal of derelict structures from the beach including a partially submerged barge, rubber tires, and fi-eestanding piles. 12. Concur with the checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a-b. Concur with the checklist. C. Concur with the checklist. d. Concur with the checklist. C. Fill quantities would be less than indicated in the checklist as the applicant has modified the proposal to reduce the length of the proposed bulkhead from 190 to 100 feet. Staff has annotated the applicant's checklist to estimate the quantity of fill material based on reduction in linear feet of bulkhead in the recently revised proposal. Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement Pile # 12-103316-00-SE / Doc. I.D. 63078 Final Staff Evaluation for the Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 5 f. Concur with the checklist. g. The bulkhead structure itself may qualify as impervious surface, and this will need to be considered in construction permit application. h. Concur with the checklist. Additionally, bulkhead and soft shore stabilization measures at the base of bluff will reduce naturally occurring erosion from wave action. 2. Air a. Concur with the checklist. b. Concur with the checklist. C. Concur with the checklist. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Concur with the checklist. 2) Concur with checklist, but the bulkheading work -will occur at or near the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) for 100 feet, and the soft shore stabilization for 90 feet. Staff has annotated the checklist to correct the referenced size of proposed bulkhead and soft armoring to reflect the most recently revised proposal. 3-6) Concur with checklist. b. Ground 1-2) Concur with the checklist. C. Water Runoff 1) Concur with the checklist. 2) Concur with the checklist d_ Concur with the checklist. 4. Plants a-c. Concur with the checklist. d. Native planting will occur where necessary to restore disturbed areas on the slope and along the toe of bluff. 5. Animals a-d. Concur with the checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a-c. Concur with the checklist. Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement File #12-103316-00-SE / Doc. I.D. 63073 Final Staff Evaluation for the Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 5 7. Environmental Health a. 1-2) Concur with checklist. b. Noise 1-3) Concur with the checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. Concur with the checklist. b. Concur with the checklist. C. Additionally, there are private driveways, parking lots, damaged stair tower, and dilapidated bulkhead, barge, and dolphins. d. Disagree with the checklist. Dilapidated bulkhead, barge, dolphins, and other beach debris will be demolished. e - g. Concur with the checklist. h. Concur with the checklist. Additionally, the area the base of the bluff is within the 100-year floodplain. i. The project will not add to the existing number of people residing at and working at the site. j - 1. Concur with the checklist. 9. Housing a-c. Concur with the checklist. 10. Aesthetics a. Proposed structures are generally built close to grade. Portions of the stair tower may be up to 20-feet above average building elevation. b — c. Concur with the checklist. 11. Light and Glare a-d. Concur with the checklist. 12. Recreation a-c. Concur with the checklist. Also, the Boy Scout retreat facility, Dash Point State Park, and Dumas Bay Park are close by. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a-b. Concur with the checklist. Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement File # 12-103816-00-SE / Doc. I.D. 63078 Final Staff Evaluation for the Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 5 C. The applicant will be required to adhere to the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 15.05.040(6)(a) as follows: "If any archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavations in the shoreline, work must stop immediately and the city of Federal Way, the state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians must be notified." 14. Transportation a-f. Concur with the checklist. 15. Public Services a-b. Concur with the checklist. 16. Utilities a-b. Concur with the checklist. IV. CONCLUSION The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.032(2)(c), as long as identified conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. The information is available to the public upon request. The city reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site, or the proposal, in order to determine the environmental significance or nonsignificance of the project at that point in time. EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Reduced Scale Site Plan Exhibit B — Vicinity Map Exhibit C — Environmental Checklist Prepared by: Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner and Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager Date: December 19, 2013 Palisades (Archbishop Brunett) Retreat Center Bulkhead and Stair Replacement File # 12-103316-00-SE / Doc. I.D. 63073 Final Staff Evaluation for the Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 5 SITE OVERVIEW SCALE: 1"=150' 1 ROCK BULKHEAD 100 FEET (GRID 25 TO 125) I RUBBER TIRES I I FREE STANDING PILES I CREATING BREAK WALL (IN DISREPAIR) REFERENCE GRID, TYR ' BEACH STABILIZATION o ALONG OHW 25 FEET ti BETWEEN BULKHEAD N I & PROP. LINE j I I I MHW (10.93') _ MHHW (11.81') APPROXIMATE LIMIT �' r OF RECENT SLIDE .ru-: SET REBAR W/CAP -!!? LS 21402= -'r _ _ •� rrlC THIGH TIMBER RETAIN WALL SLOPE VEGETATED. z (SEE NOTE 3) 4' HIGH TIMBER RETAIN WALL TOP OF SLOPE BANK STAEILSZATLOHI ❑ETAli (1YPI" 2 ROCm BULK lE.SD DETAIL YPICAL N[N•rnSCA OHW \MHW OHW MHW MHHW MHW 11.6 F!) (10.6 PI) (11.8 ['1) (10 tl H'I'j ( - WHERE DISTURBED, PL\CE JUIE FABRIC WITHNATIVE .Y •` JVVF,4M1T PLANTS. (SEE PLANT LARGE IJST & PI.AIN•TING I,NNM1� NLAnN l w- r 12" DIA PILES TOP ELEV=22.6 f 3 `/iiii�CD Lu m E'} 0D�m 2 5 r cm -' PRO.IEcr AREA SCALE: 1 "=30' BEACH NOURISHMENT AREA WILL BE — CONDUCTED PER WDFW REQUIREMENTS (GRID 25 TO 125) '2',• BEACH STABILIZATION ALONG — OHW 65 FEET PAST THE ROCK BULKHEAD (GRID 125 TO 190) ;:•, i 3 PILES 15't TALL v .... I N • • ! 2 0 5 50 0 50 00 5 L 0a _- I _ _ �.0 .ham-,`�.--• :�-�, t SET REBAR W/C L PI_~.11EG ATEO---�n._.� - LS 21402 l . SEE NOTE 3 8' -14' VERTICAL PRDt?03Ep RE'LACMENT STAIRWAY G - :•. �, yr:-. -.l•-� (SEE,SHEET.6�0ETWL_Z). - F. r 512'::�� SLOPE VEGETAT D (SEE NOTE 3) � _ __ 57 PIiS•].om POVE _ sii '� y V-1"`-^ � - E57'PCi.S•2 • �_ � .�.'"I1A- �. V...- _ 7.�-•.. _ _ - fir_ _ -_ _ _'�•f• -. �l ' W ao �.• l ..�I - �• ��: .. �- _ - 3.5' WILD -_ WOOD STAIRS l 2'HIGHTIMBER I RETAIN WALL ti ! I TRAIL K TEST PIT 13-3 E�BPG DR --� I T 7 7 U I l}' ,f 1 Pll.E CAP AND'*LP..IN DETAIL 3 14GT To ecALE EXISTING CREOSOTE PILE r.. ��'dikll3l:IY1dC�4 nu, I W 11�f r , IN tf ''!r l s Ys• + r m BARGE ANDBRI DES REMOVAL DETAIL 4 140I TO SCALE REMOVE EXISTING BARGE, TIRES AND DEBRIS. 318" • G' II EACH NOU RRISI[ME 9ARTERIAL FIR HEMLOCK 20' FIR i A.LDE 4 Is MEMOS 4�.i,Pa• �� T�,L•`���11r*�y�1�yrr!�y A*A. W��E� f,,+r�1n �w A� trr ♦r+► • �rrr ♦ ♦ rrrr + • LEGEND: FORESTEDAREA — - 0Hw - - MHHW (11 B FT) MHW(10BFT) f• R IL„'� D gHCSIORA,IONMER �' ETC �' uLxl I�F�rS�o BANK STABILIZATION, 25 Fr-65 FT (SEE DETAIL I) V\+ DECIDUOUS TREE GENERALNOTES: I. UPLANDAREANOT SURVEYED 2. DATUM: MLLW 3. SLOPE VEGITATED WITH NATIVESPECIES INCLUDING DOUGLAS FIR, WESTERN HEMLOCK, BIG LEAF MAPLE AND RED ALDER OVER BEAKED HAZELNUT, OCEANSPRAY, SWORD FERN, FI REW EEO, THIMB LEBERRY, SALAL.ANDASSORTED GRASSES INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES INCLUDE ENGLISH IVY. TREE LABELS: TREE /I & #2 = 10.ORNAMENTAL TREE 03 = N' CEDAR GROUPYI: (3J 12'-14' HEMLOCKS (5) 12'-13" FIRS GROUPN2 (6) 12'-20- FIRS (3) 10•-12' HEMLOCKS GROUP 03 (2) 14'.16" FIRS (5) 10'-16' HEMLOCKS caau,<u_ OROUrs). •L. (I)ILI N9V029 IFf) MLLW.(FZ) ML1YV §I 10a APFIL! ED FOSTER. (2") 3824851 SJE PFFSSCRIPTION: PAR ELA: P,MLca N*mt;K 1 L21OMPO STE AOFsm a'tpp Bw O+M1M1,1 PpwT RDM VAAY, WA¢40r.3 ;vr ARry ,sroJes, DF E�'+ru Via! zQer4D 1l�M F.S,ATli6 tSEI SVIDNlL>t,E q{B1pRAS1¢I(: HRBA14 CONSERVANCY. LEGAL DESCRIPRON: PR!FF LYuYe1A#8LA01-101539 REG1C9A1¢3i �P��70, BOX" BEING WLY 1M GL 3 TGW PoR SW 114 STR 11.21-3 LY NELY MARINE VIEW DR TOW TO LOS ADJ PARCEL B: PARCEL NUMBER: 11210MM SITEADDRESS: SW DASH POINT ROAD FEDERAL WAY, WA98823 'AREA 441,888 BF (10.1 ACRES) ZONING: SUBURBAN ESTATES (SE) SHORELINE DESIGNATION: URBAN CONSERVANCY L�Ay,OE9EnPnD11 PCL B FEDERAL WAY BLA A BLA01-101539 REC 4200107119=MA SO BLA BEING WLY IM GL 3 TGW POR SW 114 STR 11-21-3 LY NELY MARINE VIEW DR TGW TO LDS ADJ 1ST91AlMITTAL. 111IfM12 Li�RErS+be<�r� 7nr�ola � a, .m��ecrn i- a O LL ��<; c� ... CO Cl)Y O f0 00 n� �"" EY� C UO �� mug O mUim U) N U'C X N N C _ Na m-- N C �=oiSw �E ar c�i ` C N N N M j N OO U) 2 co o a E a O "M U N y C p' O i� I E o N Q C � N� 0 O O CC) ' p � Q �] a c Q. N U C U O O 0 2 m > :5 C's � � r ao � ao . �o(A O C'C UaL >. NOMO (U %1 f ED �:. a� a�a N�a rn��NN �,� r O 0 x CU C) ca ca c Z �_ N �. E N� a) co N L p w �- U ; ~ a -a O O E v Y Y � O L 7 L m U 7 7- O 1 C�3 o'• 06 1 77 73 �9 oil Q � w o ; -. It m Co ° 3 nQ. t , cc ia) C-7 1 { ❑C� COc� ❑ MS :HBO �� ED m J Q U) 6 ca 40 s�Y &L `. : CITY OF Vederal'1ltilay 1 . I . NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION 1 Name: Palisades Bulkhead and Beach Access Stair Replacement Description: Proposal to construct a 380 linear foot bulkhead, 340 linear foot soft shore armoring, and repair a portion of an existing beach access stair. All work is proposed within a designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment. The site is also categorized as a geologically hazardous area (steep slope, erosion, and seismic hazard) and is located within a designated coastal flood hazard area. Applicant: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 91h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Agent: Dale Yeager, Yeager Associates, 14323 116`h Avenue East, Puyallup, WA 98374 Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road. King County tax parcel number 112103-9010, Federal Way, WA 98023 Date Application Received: August 17, 2012 Date Determined Complete: September 19, 2012 Date of Notice of Application: September 28, 2012 Permits Required by this Application: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, (File #12-103815-00-SH); Shoreline Variance, (File #12-103814-00-SH); Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (File #12-103812-00-SH); and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #12-103816-00-SE). Existing Environmental Documents: SEPA Checklist, Geotechnical Report, Shoreline Permits Consistency Report, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, and Cultural Resources Assessment. Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below: X YES NO Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at this Time: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15, "Shoreline Management'; FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management; and FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC and the King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City of Federal Way. Any person may submit written comments on the Notice of Land Use Application to the Director of Community and Economic Development by October 12, 2012. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community and Economic Development (address below). Any person has the right to submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner and appear at the public hearing of the Hearing Examiner to give comments orally. Notification of the public hearing date will occur approximately 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Only persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner may challenge the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, 253-835-2644 City of Federal Way, Department of Community and Economic Development 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Published in the Federal Way Mirror on September 28, 2012. File # 12-103812-00-SH Doc. I.D. 62277 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. RESUBMITTED A. BACKGROUND NOV 2.6 2013 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair 2. Name of applicant: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Ed Foster, 710 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-382-4851 Contact: Dale Yeager, ' ^�' -T'� ' Avenue East, Puyallup, WA 98374 12020 451h Avenue Court NW, Gig Harbor, WA98332 Phone: 253-202-4953 4. Date checklist prepared: July 17, fiRevised November 24, 2013 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way, WA 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The construction activities for the new bulkhead, bulkhead replacement, soft shore stabilization, and stair repair will commence as soon as permits are issued. No construction will occur during the March 3- July 1 time frame designated by the WDF&W as the time during which juvenile salmonids are most likely to be present. The project will be built in at least two phases depending on availability of funds. The owner anticipates completing the first phase in 2014 2014. Subsequent phases would potentially start in 2015 and completed by 2015.. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Four reports have been prepared for this application: 1) a Geologic Hazard Assessment prepared by GeoResources, LLC; 2) a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC; 3) a Cultural Resources Report prepared by Cultural Resources Consultants Inc., 4) Shoreline Permits Consistency Report prepared by Yeager Associates, LLC. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No other applications are pending regarding this property. 2 10. List any government approvals or perinits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance for the bulkhead replacement and new rock bulkhead, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the soft armoring stabilization and stair repair and replacement, SEPA for the bulkhead replacement, new bulkhead and stair repair, WDF&W Hydraulic Project Approval; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Endangered Species Act - Section 7 consultation concurrence, NOAA - Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, building permit for the stair repair. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Tems--pirepesal is to relaeea-ppreximately 45 feet 0 timber-Aer-eosete bulldhead- with roek bulkhead and add an additional 335 feet Of r-o& buildhead for a total of 380 feet. Soft ar-mot-ing material will be used fer aH additional 340 feet of shoreline.— This proposal is to construct approximately 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead and 220 feet of soft shore stabilization. This proposal also includes a request to repair the wooden stairs which provide access from the property down to the beach. Approximately 95 feet of stair way was damaged in recent storms and needs to be replaced. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Address: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA 98023; STR: 11-21-3; Parcel Numbers: 1121039010 and 1121039029. Latitude 47.32548, Longitude-122.39137 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The majority of the site is flat overlooking Dumas Bay on Puget Sound. The northern edge of the property where the stair repair is to be undertaken is steep with slopes of approximately 90%. 3 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 90%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey identifies three soil types on the property: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Sandy Glacial Till -moderate erosion hazard) on the majority of the property where the buildings , are located; Alderwood/ Kitsap soils (Glacial Till/Lacustrine-severe erosion hazard) on the steep slope. Beach Sand and Gravel at the shoreline (no erosion hazard). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The Federal Way SMP characterization map (Map 1C Puget Sound West Reach) and the Geotechnical Report identifies the property and surrounding shoreline as a geological hazard because of its steep slopes and erosion and landslide potential. The property has experienced landslides and erosion in the past caused by severe winter storms. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Based upon a bulkhead len h of 190 ft the ro'ect would use approximately 56 ds of quarry s alls behind the wall approximately 60 ds of beach nourishment and approximately 96 yards of actual rock. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The bulkhead construction portion of the project may involve disturbing some vegetation at the toe of the slope. It will not involve clearing of vegetation or work on the slopes. The stair repair and replacement will involve some vegetation removal which will be dealt with in detail during the building permit phase of the project. The portion of the stairs damaged in recent storms will be supported by needle or pin piles similar to the piling that supports the existing stairs. This is discussed in detail in the GeoResources Report which is part of this application. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NA rd h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Before the repair of the stairway is under taken, a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) will be implemented. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The only air emissions will be during the operation of the heavy equipment needed to install the new bulkhead and repair the stairs. This will consist of diesel engine exhaust which will contribute to suspended particulates as well as carbon monoxide. The emissions will only be present during the construction period which expected to take about 2-3 months. There will be no air emissions after the project is completed. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no off -site emissions or odors that will affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The equipment used at the site will meet all emission standards required by the state. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project is located on the Federal Way shoreline of Puget Sound. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The proposal will require work in and adjacent to the shoreline. The bulkhead repair and replacement will occur at the toe of the slope on the westerly 380 feet of the property. Soft armoring will occur on the remaining 340 feet of the property at the toe of the slope. All bulkhead work will be landward of the existing creosote bulkhead. The stair repair area on the 5 slope is within 200 feet of the shoreline. See the project site plan and the Habitat Assessment Report and the Geotechnical Report. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NA 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. There will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The property is considered to be a 100 year floodplain per the Federal Insurance Rate Map, FIRM Panel 1225 of 1725. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Existing surface run off will continue. The project does not increase or create run off. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO. 6 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None proposed. The project does not affect surface or ground water or runoff. The project will comply with all applicable code requirements related to mitigating adverse environmental impacts from the bulkhead replacement, new bulkhead, and stair repair. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X— deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X— other types of vegetation (macroalgae, ferns, invasive English ivy) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some vegetation may be removed for the placement of the stairs and construction of the bulkhead at the toe of the slope. Details will be discussed and evaluated during the building permit process. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plants are known to occur in the area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: NONE 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Fish and wildlife habitat and species are described in detail in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared by Soundview Consultants. See specifically Chapter 4. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Juvenile salmonids migrate along the shoreline and presumably various waterfowl may use the site. The property has not been identified as a unique or special habitat for any particular species. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Project timing, conservation measures, and the use of LWD for soft armoring will be used to mitigate and minimize impacts to listed species and their habitats. 6. Energy and Natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NA. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: No energy conservation measures are included in this proposal. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Other than fuel to operate the machinery there are no hazardous materials to be used on the project. Work performed on the project will comply with all local, state, and federal regulations. 8 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. If a spill occurs, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Washington Dept. of Ecology, and Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife will be contacted. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: A hazardous spill management plan will be present on the construction barge. Spill cleanup and containment materials will also be on board. Included in the cleanup packets will be containment booms, materials designed to absorb petroleum products, and plastic bags to be used for material transport. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no noise sources in the area that would affect the project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. There will be minimal noise impacts because the heavy equipment is operating on the shoreline well below any residences on Dash Point Road and other streets. Hand held power tools will also be used and will generate very minimal noise. Equipment noise will last only as long as it takes to complete the project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Operating hours will be in compliance with the FWCC Section 22-1006. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? ABRC is located on 36 acres of land over looking Dumas Bay on Puget Sound. It was established in 1956. The property is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. In addition to the church and retreat center, there is an office, shop/garage, a small house, and residences for eight retired priests. The property to the west is owned by the Boy Scouts of America and has one building. The property to the SW, South and east is developed with single family dwellings on lots generally 1-3 acres in size. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site has not been used for agriculture. 9 c. Describe any structures on the site. Church, retreat center, shop/garage, office, and housing for eight retired priests exist on the property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? (SE) Suburban Estates 1DU/5 acres. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low Density Residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban Conservancy. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. The bluff overlooldng Dumas Bay is considered a geologically hazardous area due to steep slopes and landslide and erosion potential. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NA. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONE. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, property and surrounding area. if any: The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning for the area. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NA. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE. 10 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NA. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? NA. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NA. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NA. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NONE. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fishing, boating, beach combing. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The 11 project will not have any negative impact on recreation or recreation opportunities. Failure to allow the bulkhead repair and stair repair will prevent the long established recreational use of the beach by visitors and residents of the ABRC. It will also lead to further erosion at the toe of the slope which will further put the stairs and upslope structures at risk. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NO. The Cultural Resources report concluded that "No archaeological sites, historic structures, or ethnographically named places are within the project vicinity." b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No measures are planned or needed. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The property is accessed from SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way. Dash Point Road is a public road running north and south from Tacoma to Des Moines. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The property is not served by public transit. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? NA. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new roads or improvements to existing roads will be required because there is no proposed change in land use. 12 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The property lies on Puget Sound and water transportation passes by. No rail or air transportation will be used. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project will not generate any vehicular trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No measures to reduce or control transportation impacts are necessary. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No measures are proposed or needed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No new utilities will be needed for the project. c. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying n them to make its decision. Signature: rl vGa Date Submitted: .f�a /`.D/� 13 Ak CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER PALISADES RETREAT CENTER BULKHEAD AND BEACH ACCESS STAIR SHORELINE VARIANCE REQUEST, SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH,12-103814-SH, and 12-103815-SH PUBLIC HEARING March 14, 2014 11:00 a.m. City Council Chambers Federal Way City Hall -- 33325 8 h Avenue South Report Prepared by: Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner Report Date: March 7, 2014 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 1 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noc. t o 63125 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. GENERAL INFORMATION......................................................................................2 II. PROJECT SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND ........... ................................... 3 III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUEST ...........4 IV. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST... n V. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SHORELINE VARIANCE REQUEST.......................................................5 VI. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT..................................................................................................5 VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT........................................................................................5 VIII. AGENCIES CONTACTED BY FEDERAL WAY................................................................................. 6 IX. SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF FWRC 15.05.150 ...........................6 X. HEARING EXAMINER SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE DECISIONAL CRITERIA REQUIREDBY FWRC 15.05.170.................................................................................................7 XI. HEARING EXAMINER SHORELINE VARIANCE DECISIONAL CRITERIA REQUIREDBY FWRC 15.05.160.................................................................................................9 XII. HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS IV DECISIONAL CRITERIA........................................................11 XIII. STATEMENTS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................18 XIV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION........................................................................................................19 I. GENERAL INFORMATION Hearing Topic: The applicant has requested a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum bulkhead height requirement of 1 foot above Mean Higher High Water (MH IW) and a shoreline conditional use permit for construction of a rock bulkhead within an area designated Shoreline Urban Conservancy. A shoreline substantial development permit is required for the proposed replacement of a damaged portion of a beach access stair and for proposed soft shore armoring. The project in its entirety is being considered in this Process IV decision. Staff Recommendation: City staff recommends approval of the shoreline substantial development permit, the shoreline Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 2 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SIVD.. M 63125 I1I conditional use permit, and shoreline variance request with conditions as outlined in Section XIV of this staff report. Location: 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, WA Applicant: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, 710 9`h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant's Agent: Dale Yeager, Yeager Associates, 12020 45th Avenue Ct NW, Gig Harbor WA 98332 Zoning: Suburban Estates - SE Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single -Family — Low -Density Shoreline Designation: Urban Conservancy Parcel Numbers: King County tax parcel numbers 112103-9010 and 112103-9029 PROJECT SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND Project Summary The applicant is proposing replacement of a 45-foot wood/creosote bulkhead with a new rock bulkhead of 45 feet in length, construction of new soft shore stabilization of 50 feet in length (25 feet on either end of the 45-foot rock bulkhead), and repair/replacement of a portion of an existing stair damaged in recent storm events. The applicant also proposes shoreline restoration by proposing to remove a derelict dolphin pile structure, a partially submerged barge, a rubber tire bulkhead, and other debris (Exhibit B). Since the initial project proposal was submitted on August 17, 2012, the applicant has revised the proposed shoreline armoring elements of the project three times. The proposed stairway reconstruction component of the project has remained unchanged. The following table summarizes the evolution of the proposal over the course of project review from initial application to time of the writing of this staff report: used Shoreline Armoring Table 1: Sum.ma of Revisions�201 Submittal Date August 17, 2012 Jul 22 November 26, 2013 March 4, 2014 Linear Feet of Proposed Hard 380 feet 190 feet 100 feet 45 feet Armoring Linear Feet of Proposed Soft 340 feet 220 feet 90 feet 50 feet Armoring As the table above indicates, the proposed shoreline armoring has been substantially reduced from the initial project proposal. The initial project proposal specified shoreline armoring along 100 percent of the property's 720 feet of marine shoreline. The current project proposal limits the hard armoring component to 45 feet (the same length of the existing wood/creosote bulkhead), Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 3 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/D.. J.D. 63125 along with 25 feet of anchored logs and boulders on either end of the rock bulkhead (total of 50 feet) to serve as a transition from hard armoring to soft armoring to natural shoreline conditions. These revisions have been made in response to comments and concerns expressed by city staff, peer review, and other reviewing agencies, regarding application of the provisions of the city's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as well as other state and federal policies and regulations regarding protection of the marine shoreline environment and its habitat functions. It is important to highlight the significant changes to the proposed project, as many of the technical reports and documents prepared for this project, and attached as exhibits to this staff report, refer to earlier versions of the project proposal with larger shoreline armoring components. The site plan dated March 4, 2014 (Exhibit B) and the letter dated March 4, 2013 (Exhibit C) communicate the proposal for which this staff recommendation was prepared. Site Characteristics The subject property is located on approximately 36 acres west of Dumas Bay on Puget Sound in Federal Way, Washington and is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. The zoning for the site is Suburban Estates (Low Density Residential 1 DU/5 acres) and those areas within 200 ft of the ordinary high water (OHW) are designated as Shoreline - Urban Conservancy. The site is surrounded by mostly single family dwellings and the property west of the site is owned by the Boy Scouts of America. The main retreat center structures are all outside the Urban Conservancy shoreline district and have been in place for over 50 years. The main structure, a retreat center, is set back about 75 ft from the top of the slope and an existing fire lane is located between the retreat center and the top of the slope. A trail and stairway lead to the beach from the top of the slope. The stairs at the base of the slope are unsupported due to a recent slide. Beyond the slide area, the shoreline bank is unarmored, vegetated, and in a natural state. The site's shoreline extends over 700 ft along a predominantly north facing slope. III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUEST The applicant is proposing replacement and relocation of the lower portion of a beach access stair that was destroyed in a recent slide related to a storm event. The project proposal also includes 50 feet of soft shore armoring split into two 25-foot lengths on either end of the proposed bulkhead. The stair and soft shore armoring components of the proposal are subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and are being considered in this Process IV decision as they are integral components of an overall project proposal that is subject to a Process IV land use decision. Preservation of the existing beach access is an allowable use in the urban conservancy environment as is soft shore armoring as long as the applicant can meet all applicable requirements of Title 15 of the FWRC "Shoreline Management". IV. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to construct a 45-foot long Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 4 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noa Lo. 63125 bulkhead in the Urban Conservancy Environment. FWRC 15.05.050(1) specifies that bulkheads are only allowed in the Urban Conservancy environment subject to a shoreline conditional use permit. In addition to the conditional use criteria, per FWRC 15.05.050 "Shoreline modifications", bulkheads may only be allowed when the applicant can demonstrate that the bulkhead is necessary to protect legally -established structures and/or uses that are subject to an imminent threat (3 years or less) of damage from waves or currents. The applicant must also demonstrate that the bulkhead is the minimum size necessary, that it won't interrupt sediment transport, that it won't have an adverse impact on neighboring properties, and that it will result in no net loss of ecological functions. V. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum height limit for a bulkhead specified by FWRC 15.05.050(2)(b)(i) as no more than one foot greater than mean higher high water (MHHW). Soundview Consultant's report (Exhibit F) provides the site's MHHW at elevation 11.8 ft and the ordinary high water mark (OHW) at elevation 12.4 ft. Due to the maximum observed tidal height at elevation 14.6 ft, the height of the bulkhead is proposed at elevation 16.4 ft. Based on the FWRC 15.05.050(1)(b)(i), the maximum allowable elevation of the hard armoring would be elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed rock bulkhead height will be approximately 3.6 ft higher than allowed by the FWRC. VI. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT The applicant's three shoreline applications were submitted on August 17, 2012, and were deemed complete on September 19, 2012. Pursuant to FWRC requirements, a Notice of Application (NOA) for the requested actions was published, posted, and distributed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on September 28, 2012. The City received no public comments in response to the notice of application. Pursuant to FWRC requirements, a Notice of Public Hearing for the shoreline variance request was published, posted, and distributed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property at least 14 days prior to the public hearing. As of the date of this staff report, the city has received one agency comment on the Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit P) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), informing city staff that the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for this project (Exhibit F) would need to be written to the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the ESA (Endangered Species Act) Biological Opinion. VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The applicant submitted a SEPA application to the City for the proposed stair repair and replacement, the proposed bulkhead and soft shore armoring and habitat restoration activities. The City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed action on December 20, 2013, (Exhibit N). Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 5 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noe. I.D. 63125 The City received no public comment letters in response to the SEPA DNS during the official comment period. However, two agency comment emails were received after the close of the official comment period (Exhibits P and Q). The two agencies providing comment were Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS). Both agencies expressed concern over the proposed extent of the shoreline armoring and its impact to documented habitat area. Both agencies indicated that they were not supportive of the proposal, and in the case of WDFW, there was a statement that they would not approve a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for the proposed development as it was presented at the time of SEPA DNS issuance. At the time of SEPA DNS issuance the proposal being evaluated was the November 26, 2013 submittal for 100 feet of bulkhead and 90 feet of soft shore armoring. Subsequent to the receipt of these agency comments, the applicant proposed further revisions to their proposal that further reduced the length of the shoreline armoring to the current proposal that is evaluated in this staff report. VIH. AGENCIES CONTACTED BY FEDERAL WAY As part of the proposal review by Federal Way staff, site visits were conducted and the proposal was circulated to the Federal Way Community Development Review Committee (CDRC), consisting of the following agencies and City departments: ■ Federal Way Planning Division ■ Federal Way Building Division ■ Federal Way Public Works Department • South King Fire and Rescue ■ Lakehaven Utility District Staff consulted representatives from the Department of Ecology as they will issue the final decision on the Shoreline Variance and the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. In addition, notice of application and SEPA decision notices were sent to agencies with jurisdiction in matters of shoreline development including but not limited to: • Tribal Agencies ■ Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and • US Army Corps of Engineers IX. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF FWRC 15.05.150(3) Per FWRC 15.05.150(3) the city may issue a substantial development permit when the development proposal is consistent with the following: a. "Goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the Federal Way shoreline master program;" Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 6 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/Doc. LD. 63125 Staff Response The proposed beach access stair and soft shore armoring are allowed uses in the shoreline urban conservancy environment. The proposal is to repair a damaged portion of an existing beach access stairway and to provide soft shore armoring to protect the stair from a documented imminent threat (potential for damage within 3 years) from wave or tidal action. The proposed project shall be constructed to meet the development standards of FWRC Title 15 "Shoreline Management". The applicant has proposed the application of best management practices (BMPs) in construction of the stair and soft shore armoring. Staff is recommending conditions of approval that specify the development, review and approval of a mitigation and monitoring plan prior to construction permit issuance to ensure that the project minimizes impacts on the shoreline environment and its habitat supporting functions. In particular, the following goals and policies of the Federal Way SMP (Chapter 11 Comprehensive Plan) are applicable to the proposed stair repair/replacement and soft shore armoring: SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing SMA requirements. Goal SMPGS Limit shoreline stabilization -which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action -including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulkheading, to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Policies SMPP31 Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. SMPP32 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions, such as bioengineering or soft -shore armoring, would not be able to protect existing development. Maintaining the beach access (the existing stair) is supported by SMPP9. Utilizing soft shore armoring is supported by SMPGS, and SMPP31 and SMPP32 in particular. These goal and policy statements are satisfied as the applicant has documented an imminent threat to the stair that supports shoreline stabilization to protect the stair. Utilizing soft shore stabilization methods is the preferred approach when stabilization is warranted in both the SMP policies and regulations. b. "Federal Way comprehensive plan and city codes; and" Staff Response See response under subsection "a" above as the City's shoreline master program is incorporated into the comprehensive plan (Chapter 11) and the city code (Title 15). In addition to these shoreline -specific regulatory and guidance documents, the proposed stair construction will be subject to building codes and Title 16 of the city code "Surface Water Management". Building permits will be reviewed for conformance with these requirements. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 7 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noc. I.D. 63125 c. "The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW and chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC)." Staff Response The proposed stair and soft shore armoring have been found to meet the requirements of the city's shoreline master program and shoreline regulations. The city's shoreline master program and shoreline regulations align with the requirements of Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC. X. SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISIONAL CRITERIA REQUIRED BY FWRC 15.05.170(4) The applicant has requested a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for the construction of hard armoring in a shoreline Urban Conservancy environment. The Hearing Examiner may approve the shoreline conditional use permit only if all shoreline conditional use permit decisional criteria of FWRC Section 15.05.170(4) are met. The applicant has the burden of proof of convincing the Hearing Examiner that the applicant is entitled to the requested decision. The applicant provided a written response that discusses the conditional use permit decisional criteria relative to the proposal (Exhibit E). Third party review of technical analysis of the project site and proposed development was provided by Landau Associates (Exhibits I and J) The Washington State Department of Ecology shall issue the final decision on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit request per FWRC 15.05.170(2). The criteria and the City's response are provided in the following sections: a. "The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the shoreline master program;" Staff Response The project proposal to provide a bulkhead which will provide protection to a stairway that allows access to the shoreline is consistent with the policies of the shoreline master program. According to City's Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Restoration Plan, the subject site is located in an area west of Dumas Bay and specific restoration actions are specified for this site including: • Remove decaying barge • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment The applicant has incorporated all of these actions into their project proposal which will improve the ecological functions of this site. In addition to the recommended restoration activities, the Shoreline Restoration Plan also recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. Therefore, the current proposal that limits the bulkhead length to that of the existing failed bulkhead is more in keeping with the goal of conserving unarmored shoreline areas than the earlier proposals that substantially increased the percentage of the site with hard armoring. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 8 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noc. LD. 63125 Staff concludes that the proposal has addressed the goals of the Shoreline Master Program for limiting the shoreline modification to the least amount necessary to protect the improvements that are subject to imminent threat to damage form wave and tidal action. As conditioned adequate mitigation and monitoring methods will be in place to ensure that the shoreline modification impacts on the shoreline environment and its habitat -supporting functions are minimized. The applicable goals and policies of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are presented in Section XII of this staff report. b. "The use will not interfere with normal use of the public shorelines;" Staff Response The project proposal is in an area that is not open to the public and all development work will occur landward of OHW or as close to the landward point as physically possible due to the site constraints and therefore, should not interfere with the normal use of the public shoreline. C. "The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area;" Staff Response Earlier project proposals (See Table 1) raised concerns with the third party reviewer that the proposed design could result in potential adverse effects on the adjacent property to the west, causing accelerated erosion on that property, (Exhibit I, page 2). The current proposal for 45 feet of bulkhead is equal in length to the existing bulkhead that failed. Its location is proposed to be east of the existing bulkhead to provide protection to the replaced lower portion of the stair that is proposed to be relocated east to a position beyond the latest slope failure that damaged the lower portion of the existing stair. The current proposal also provides 25 feet of soft shore armoring on the western end of the bulkhead to provide a transition from hard armoring to soft armoring to natural conditions which addresses the potential impact to the neighboring property. The applicant has proposed BMPs, and mitigation and restoration actions for construction activities related to the bulkhead to mitigate potential short and long term impacts. In addition, staff is recommending conditions of approval that ensure there is ongoing monitoring of the site to identify any adverse effects on the shoreline environment and its habitat supporting functions occur. The current project proposal was developed directly in response to agency concerns identified by WDFW and NMFS (Exhibits Q and R) about the potential for hard armoring to disrupt natural beach nourishment activity of the site. The staff recommended conditions of approval related to mitigation and ongoing monitoring also address agency concerns about preserving the ecological functions of the site. d. "The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;" Staff Response Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 9 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/n.. i.n. 63125 The City of Federal Way Shoreline Restoration Plan — Section 6 of the city's Shoreline Master Program - recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay (Page 21 and Map 3 Shoreline Restoration Plan, ESA Adolfson, June 2010). (Exhibit X) The current project proposal has limited the proposed bulkhead to 45 feet, the size of the existing bulkhead and therefore lessens the potential for detrimental effects due to the armoring disrupting the sediment supply and changing the composition of nearby beaches, especially the nearby public shorelines. e. "Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area;" Staff Response The City's Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan recommends conserving unarmed shorelines west of Dumas Bay (subject site is located in this area). Therefore, development of bulkheads in this area raise a concern for the potential of cumulative impacts if adjacent shoreline properties within this area are armored in a similar fashion. The current proposal is for a 45-foot long bulkhead which is the same size as the existing failed bulkhead which greatly reduces the impact of the action on this shoreline area. As conditioned, the project will have minimal impact to the shoreline environment and should set a good precedent for minimizing alteration of this sensitive shoreline area. XI. SHORELINE VARIANCE CRITERIA REQUIRED BY FWRC 15.05.160(3) The applicant has requested a variance from the maximum bulkhead height limit. The Hearing Examiner may approve the variance request only if all shoreline variance decisional criteria of FWRC Section 15.05.160(3) are met. The applicant has the burden of proof of convincing the Hearing Examiner that the applicant is entitled to the requested decision. The applicant provided a written response that discusses the variance decisional criteria relative to the proposal (Exhibit E). Third party review of technical analysis of the project site and proposed development was provided by Landau Associates (Exhibits I and J) The Washington State Department of Ecology shall issue the final decision on the Shoreline Variance Request per FWRC 15.05.160(2). The shoreline variance criteria and the City's response are provided in the following sections: a. "That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program;" Staff Response The new bulkhead is proposed to be increased in height to provide protection of the stairs that provide access to the site shoreline. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. This means that the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 10 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/D«.1 D. 63125 highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the beach access stair. b. "That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions;" Staff Response The hardship of limiting the bulkhead height to no more than 1 foot above NEHHW is due to unique features on the site, including the historic landslide areas, steep slopes, and tidal wave actions, and is not a result of the applicant's own actions. The need for the higher bulkhead is to protect the replaced stairway which, once repaired, will restore access to the shoreline by those individuals staying at the retreat center. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the beach access stair. C. "That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment;" Staff Response Allowing the additional height to the bulkhead should be compatible with other permitted activities in the area, since the protection is needed to provide shoreline access and provide continued protection of the stairway accessing the site. d. "That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief;" Staff Response Since the previous bulkhead [2-ft higher (elevation 14.8 ft) than the allowed height], was over topped by tidal action, this overtopping by tidal action, most likely contributed to the previous bulkhead failure. Therefore, allowing the shoreline variance for an increase in. height of 3.6 ft above the allowed height to allow protection of the stairway to maintain shoreline access is not a grant of special privilege. Based on site information; the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft in height and still failed; the maximum observed tide at the site was elevation 14.6 ft (Soundview Consultants report Exhibit F) which is above the allowed bulkhead height; and the recent Puget Sound "king tide" events, the 3.6-ft height variance is the minimum necessary to protect the site. Other properties in the area have similarly constructed bulkheads that exceed the current allowable height limit. It is conceivable that other property owners could be afforded the same relief to protect shoreline access. It has come to the attention of city staff that the current maximum height limit for bulkheads as prescribed in the adopted SMP may be unachievable for many marine shoreline properties. Staff is currently in communication Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 11 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/D. ID 63125 with the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding potential modification of the bulkhead height requirement. In the interim, the only relief is a shoreline variance request. e. "That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;" Staff Response The additional height does not interfere with the use of the shoreline; it provides and maintains access to the shoreline for the guests at the ABRC. The bulkhead will be landward of the OHW and the added height of the bulkhead should not cause a detrimental effect provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the beach access stair. E "That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and" Staff Response The project proposal for additional bulkhead height is landward of the OHW (except for potential de minimis intrusions); therefore, the additional height for the bulkhead will not impact the public rights of navigation of the public waterway. g. "That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline." Staff Response Since the maximum observed tide in the project area was elevation 14.6 ft and the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (2-ft higher than the elevation allowed by the FWRC), and still failed, based on information in all the reports, the additional height is needed to protect the stairs. Alternatively, if the height variance was denied and the bulkhead was constructed at a lower height which, due to tidal action failed, the bulkhead and stair debris that would occur from this event could have an adverse effect on the shoreline. Granting the bulkhead height variance is consistent with shoreline policies by maintaining shoreline access, providing the improvement landward of OHW, and protecting the stairway access. Additionally, protection of the stairs prevents them from failing and falling onto the shoreline area and will prevent adverse effects on the shoreline, provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. XH. HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS IV DECISIONAL CRITERIA The Hearing Examiner may, after consideration of the entire matter on record, issue a decision with or without conditions, or a denial, pursuant to the FWRC. FWRC Section 19.70.150(3) contains six decisional criteria that are used by the Hearing Examiner during Process IV review. These decisional criteria are applied to the entire project proposal. The decisional criteria and staff response follow: Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 12 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/D.. ID. 63125 a. "It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;" Staff Response The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) contains goals and policies to help guide the orderly growth and development of the City. The FWCP provides general policy framework as a basis for implementing regulations and other City programs such as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The subject site is designated as Single -Family — Low -Density Residential by the FWCP, and zoned SE "Suburban Estates". The subject site is designated "Shoreline Urban Conservancy" in the Shoreline Master Program. As conditioned, the proposed project will be consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, and the following components of the FWCP support the recommended conditions for the development. The following excerpt from the FWCP Shoreline Master Program Chapter 11 provides a summary of the purpose of the urban conservancy environment. Purpose The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, flood plain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. Criteria The Urban Conservancy environment designation is assigned to shoreline areas appropriate and planned for development that are compatible with maintaining or restoring the ecological functions of the area that are not generally suitable for water -dependent high -intensity uses. The Urban Conservancy environment is applied to shorelines if any of the following characteristics apply: 1. They have open space, flood plain, or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively developed; 2. They have potential for ecological restoration; 3. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or 4. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. Management Policies Residential, recreational, commercial, and public facility uses should be allowed, provided they preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, flood plain, bluffs, or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term. Water - oriented uses should be given priority over non -water -oriented uses. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water -dependent uses should be given highest priority. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. 2. Standards should be developed and implemented for management of environmentally sensitive or designated critical areas to ensure that new development does not result in a Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 13 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/n«, I.D. 63125 net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or further degrade other shoreline values. Development standards should be developed and implemented for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality. 3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 4. To enhance the waterfront and ensure maximum public use, commercial or office facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with public safety, security, and protection of shoreline ecological functions. 5. Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means of sign control regulations, architectural design standards, landscaping requirements, and other such means. Applicable goals and policies in the FWCP Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 11 are as follows: SMPP8 Development should be regulated accordingly in shoreline areas known to contain development hazards or which would adversely impact designated critical areas as identified in FWRC Title 15. a. All development should be prohibited within the 100-year floodplain, except single-family residential and water -dependent or water -related uses. b. All development should be prohibited in shoreline areas of severe or very severe landslide hazard. C. All development should be regulated in shoreline areas with slopes of 40 percent or greater. d. Shoreline areas containing other potential hazards (e.g., geological conditions, unstable subsurface conditions, erosion hazards, or groundwater or seepage problems) should be regulated as necessary to avoid unsafe development and disturbance of sensitive areas. SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing SMA requirements. Goal SMPGS Limit shoreline stabilization -which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action -including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulkheading, to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Policies SMPP31 Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 14 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noe. I.D.63M SMPP32 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions, such as bioengineering or soft -shore armoring, would not be able to protect existing development. SMPP33 Planning of shoreline stabilization should encompass sizable stretches of lake or marine shorelines. This planning should consider off -site erosion, accretion, or flood damage that might occur as a result of shoreline protection structures or activities. SMPP34 Shoreline stabilization on marine and lake shorelines should not be used as a means of creating new or newly developable land. SMPP35 Shoreline stabilization structures should allow passage of ground and surface waters into the main water body. SWP36 Shoreline stabilization should not reduce the volume and storage capacity of streams and adjacent wetlands or flood plains. SMPP37 Whenever shoreline stabilization is needed, bioengineered alternatives such as natural berms and erosion control vegetation plans should be favored over hard surfaced structural alternatives such as concrete bulkheads and sheet piles. SMPP38 The burden of proof for the need for shoreline stabilization to protect existing developments or proposed redevelopments rests on the applicant. SMPP39 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or increased shoreline protection on the same or other affected properties where there has been no previous need for protection should not be allowed. SMPP40 New development shall be designed and located so as not to require shoreline stabilization. SNTP41 Areas of significance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or residency of aquatic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in review of proposed shoreline stabilization activities. SMPP42 Shoreline stabilization activities should be discouraged in areas where they would disrupt natural feeder bluffs processes important for maintaining beaches. Goal SMPG10 Preserve and protect the ecological functions of intact natural shorelines and ecologically sensitive shorelines as outlined within the shoreline inventory and characterization. Policies SWP68 Manage designated critical areas in the shoreline such as critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, regulated wetlands, and streams —according to measures provided in this SMP. These include shoreline environment designations, allowed uses, development standards and regulations, and mitigation for unavoidable impacts. They should also be consistent with the policies Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 15 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/D.. ID. 63125 contained in FWCP Chapter 9, "Natural Environment." SMPP69 Develop standards, buffers, and mitigation requirements for designated critical areas in the shoreline consistent with city-wide regulations. Goal SMPG11 Assure preservation of unique and non-renewable natural resources and assure conservation of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations and the public interest. Policies SMPP70 All new development and activity in or adjacent to shoreline areas should be designed, constructed, and operated as to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality. Use of state and local best management practices and guidance should be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality. SNWP71 Shorelines that are of unique or valuable natural character should be considered for acquisition. Subsequent management of such areas should protect or enhance shoreline ecological functions. SMPP72 Protection and conservation of vegetation within shoreline areas should be managed through implementation of setback, clearing and grading, and mitigation standards for development activity. SMPP73 Resource conservation should be an integral part of shoreline planning. All future shoreline development should be planned, designed, and sited to minimize adverse impact upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. SM[PP74 Scenic and aesthetic qualities and ecological functions of shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. a. When appropriate, natural flora and fauna should be preserved. b. In shoreline areas, the natural topography should not be substantially altered. c. Shoreline structures should be sited and designed to minimize view obstruction and should be visually compatible with the shoreline character. d. Wildlife and aquatic habitats, including spawning grounds, should be protected. SMPP75 Resources should be managed to enhance the environment and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. a. Shoreline in -water and over -water activities and development should be planned, constructed, and operated to minimize adverse effects on the natural processes of the shoreline, and should maintain or enhance the quality of air, soil, natural vegetation, and water on the shoreline. b. Use or activity which substantially degrades the natural resources or ecological functions of the shoreline should not be allowed without mitigation as required by SMP regulations and FWRC Title 14, "Environmental Policy." SMPP76 Critical salmonid habitats, including saltwater and freshwater habitat used by Pacific salmonid Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 16 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/D.- I.D. 63125 species, support valuable recreational and commercial fisheries and should be protected for their importance to the aquatic ecosystem, as well as state and local economies. a. Non -water -dependent and non -water -related uses, activities, structures, and landfills should not be located in critical salmonid habitats. b. Where uses, activities, structures, and landfills must locate in critical salmonid habitats, impacts on these areas should be lessened to the maximum extent possible. Significant unavoidable impacts should be mitigated by creating in -kind replacement habitat near the project where feasible. Where in -kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitation of out -of -kind or off --site degraded habitat should be required. Mitigation proposals should be developed in consultation with the City, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and any affected Indian Nations. c. Development that is outside critical salmonid habitats that has the potential to significantly affect said habitats should be located and designed as to not create significant negative impacts to said habitats. d. Whenever feasible, bioengineering should be used as the bank protection technique for all streams considered to have critical salmonid habitat. e. Whenever feasible, open pile bridges should be used for all water crossings over areas considered critical salmonid habitat. f. Impervious surfaces should be minimized in upland developments to reduce stormwater runoff peaks. Structures and uses creating significant impervious surfaces should include stormwater detention systems to reduce stormwater runoff peaks. g. The discharge of silt and sediments into waterways shall be minimized during in -water and upland construction. h. Adopt -A -Stream programs and similar efforts to rehabilitate critical salmonid habitats should be encouraged. i. Fishery enhancement projects should be encouraged where they will not significantly interfere with other beneficial uses. j. Project proponents should contact the Habitat Division of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and affected Indian Nations early in the development process to determine if the proposal will occur in or adjacent to critical salmonid habitat. k. When reviewing permits for uses, activities, and structures proposed in, over, or adjacent to marine waters, streams, wetlands, ponds connected to streams, or any other shoreline area, City staff should contact the Habitat Division of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if the proposal will occur in or affect any adjacent critical habitats. Staff should also contact affected Indian Nations. Goal SMPG14 Encourage voluntary restoration projects on private property in degraded shoreline environments. Policies Goal SMPG16 Identify, protect, preserve, and restore important archaeological, historical, and cultural sites located in or associated with Federal Way's shorelines for scientific and educational purposes. Policies Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 17 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SWDoe. ID. 63125 SMPP93 Manage cultural and historic resources in the shoreline consistent with city-wide policies for treatment of such resources in the FWCP. SMPP94 Recognize that shoreline areas are of moderate to high probability for archaeological resources and require appropriate review and site investigation for proposed development or modifications. b. "It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other applicable laws;" Staff Response The proposal is maintaining the retreat center's private property rights to maintain beach access, and to protect the beach access stair from imminent threat of wave or tidal action. This right to enjoyment of private property within a designated environmentally sensitive and unique shoreline environment is balanced against the Shoreline Master Program's specification of no net loss so shoreline ecological functions and mitigation of short and long term impacts of development within designated shoreline areas. The current project proposal was developed directly in response to agency concerns identified by WDFW and NMFS (Exhibits P and Q) about the potential for hard armoring to disrupt natural beach nourishment activity of the site. As conditioned, appropriate mitigation and monitoring plans will be implemented to ensure that the impacts to the shoreline environment and its habitat supporting functions will be mitigated. In addition, the applicant is proposing to remove an existing wood/creosote bulkhead, a partially submerged barge that acts as a groin, and other debris from the shoreline environment that will improve the habitat functions of the site as well as implement specific restoration measures identified for the site in the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program. C. "It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare;" Staff Response The proposed project will restore safe access to the beach. Staff is recommending that a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan be required to ensure that beach nourishment and restoration activities are not detrimental to shoreline environment and the habitat -supporting functions of site. d. "The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal;" Staff Response The subject lot fronts on SW Dash Point Road, which is a public roadway serving several private residences as well as the retreat center. Water and sewer service is provided to the site by Lakehaven Utility District. The requested bulkhead shoreline variance and shoreline conditional use permit, if approved, would not result in any additional impacts to the streets and utilities in the area. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 18 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SH/noo. I.D. 63125 e. "The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location of configuration for access; and" Staff Response Access to the site is from SW Dash Point Road. The bulkhead shoreline variance request and shoreline conditional use permit, if approved, would not result in any modification to the access to the existing retreat center. f. "Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated." Staff Response Access to the site is from SW Dash Point Road. The bulkhead shoreline variance request and conditional use permit, if approved, would not result in any modification to the access to existing retreat center. XIII. STATEMENTS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Based on an analysis of the proposed action and related decisional criteria, the Department of Community and Economic Development finds that: 1. The FWCP designation of the site is Single -Family — Low -Density. Zoning of the site is Suburban Estates - SE. The shoreline designation is Urban Conservancy. 2. The project site is located within a designated 100 year flood plain and a designated geologically hazardous area (erosion and landslide hazard area) 3. The proposed project includes repair and relocation of a section of an existing beach access stair that was damaged in a recent storm and the construction of 50 feet of soft shore armoring (anchored logs and boulders) that are subject to a shoreline substantial development permit under FWRC 19.05.150. 4. The applicant has submitted a shoreline conditional use permit application to construct 45 feet of rock bulkhead. Per FWRC 15.05.050(1) bulkheads require a shoreline conditional use permit in the urban conservancy environment. 5. The applicant has submitted a variance request to exceed the maximum bulkhead height of 1 foot above mean higher high water (M HW) by 3.6 feet. Per FWRC 15.05.160(2) and FWRC 15.05.170(2) when a shoreline variance, or a shoreline conditional use permit is required/requested, the substantial development permit shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC. Therefore the entire project proposal is being considered under this Process IV decision. 7. The applicant has documented that erosion from waves or currents at the site present an imminent threat (within 3 years) to the existing beach access stairway and that the proposed bulkhead is necessary to protect the beach access. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on December 20, 2013. There were no comments or appeals received on the City's determination [two agency email comments were received after the close of the official comment period (Exhibits P and Q)]. The Final Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 19 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SIVD«, I D. 63125 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application No. 12-103816-00- SE, is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full (Exhibit O). 9. The City has conducted and analysis of the requirements for granting a substantial development permit for the stair repair and replacement and soft shore armoring per FWRC 15.05.150(3) and finds that the requirements are met as identified in Section IX of this staff report. The analysis of substantial development permit requirements in FWRC 15.05.150(3) is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 10. The City has conducted an analysis of the decisional criteria shoreline for the conditional use permit to construct hard armoring on property located within the shoreline Urban Conservancy environment. The City finds that the decisional criteria of FWRC 15-05- 170(4), are met as identified in Section XI of this staff report. The analysis of the shoreline conditional use decisional criteria in FWRC 15.05.170(4) is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 11. The City has conducted an analysis of the required decisional criteria for the bulkhead height variance request and finds that the required decisional criteria of FWRC Sections 15-05- 160(3) are met as identified in Section X of this staff report. The analysis of the shoreline variance decisional criteria in FWRC 15.05.160(3) is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 12. The City has conducted an analysis of the required decisional criteria for the Process IV land use decision and finds that the decisional criteria of FWRC 19.70.150(3) are met as identified in Section XH of this staff report. The analysis of the Process IV land use decisional criteria in FWRC Section 19.70.150(3) is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. XIV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the shoreline substantial development permit application, the shoreline variance application, and the shoreline conditional use permit application and pertinent decisional criteria, the Department of Community and Economic Development recommends approval of the shoreline substantial development permit for the proposed stair repair/replacement and 50 feet of soft shore armoring the requested bulkhead shoreline conditional use permit request and the shoreline variance for the construction of 45 feet of rock bulkhead (hard armoring) in the Shoreline Urban Conservancy environment as shown on Exhibit B subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any work associated with this application, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation and monitoring plan that incorporates all proposed construction impact mitigation measures and shoreline restoration/mitigation actions outlined on the overall site plan dated March 4, 2014 (Exhibit B); and in the July, 2013 Soundview Consultants Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report; and the September, 2013 GeoResources Geological Hazards Assessment. These mitigation measures shall be reflected in applicable construction related documents for review and approval by City staff, and include verification/peer review funded by the applicant. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 20 Palisades Retreat Center Federal Way File Nos. 12-103812-SH, 12-103814-SH and 12-103815-SHb«. I.D. 63125 ------------------------ AGENCY USE ONLY Y,... V� US Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE S"neo' ns Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form',2 USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. Part 1—Project Identification Date received: Agency reference #: P Tax Parcel #(s): 112103-9010 and 112t03-9029 L-----------------------------------_---1 i . Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) jgj Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) — Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs — Revised Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. hl pipj 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Foster, Ed 2b. Organization (If applicable) Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 710 91h Avenue 2d. City, State, Zip Seattle, Washington 98104 2e. Phone (i) 2f. Phone (2) 2 . Fax 2h. E-mail ( 206) 382-4851 { ) (206) 382-4266 Ed.f@seatdearch.org Additional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Speciric Project information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evatuation. Forms can be found at ht! :llvhvw.nws.usace.am� .millMlssionslCivilWor#cslRe utato lPermitGuidebooklEndan ered5 ecies.as x. • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. It you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. 2-ro access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to httg:llw vw epermittinq.wa.aovlsiielalias resourcecenterharpa 'area form/99841iarpa form.aspx. - -1 For other help, contact the Govemor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or heloftra.wa.gov. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 14 Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) of gtd 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Villa, Racheal at Soundview Consultants LLC ` 3b. Organization (tt applicable) 3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 2907 Harborview Drive 3d. City, State., Zip Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) ( 253) 514-8952 ( 253) 973-6833 Fax ( 253) 514-8954 3h. E-mail Racheal@soundviewconsultants.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. noel ) ® Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights -of -way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 4b. Organization (it applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 4d. City, State, Zip 4e. Phone(i) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 2 of 14 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. Lgipj ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) hf gm ® Private ❑ Federal ❑ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) ftj elpj 4700 Dash Point Road 5c. City, State, Zip (if, the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) hel l Federal Way, Washington 98023 5d. County he( l 1 King County 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. Lelp 14 Section Section Township ,Range Northwest 'A 11 21 North 03 East 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. held • Example: 47.03922 N lat. /-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83) 47' 19' 44.43" North latitude, 122' 23' 29.13" West longitude (WGS 84). 5g. List the tax parcel numbers) for the project location. • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 112103-9010 and 112103-9029 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (if you need:more space, use JARPA Attachment e.) help] Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Boy Scouts of America 30900 50th Ave Southwest 1121039040 (West) Federal Way, Washington 98023 Ross Mark A and Janet 4806 Southwest 3101h Street 1840800025 (West) Federal Way, Washington 98023 Perez, Jose M 31004 48'h Avenue Southwest '1840800020 (West) Federal Way, Washington 98023 sorbun, Anatohy and Taya 31014 48'h Avenue Southwest 1840800015 (West) Federal Way, Washington 98023 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 3 of 14 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. hei No wetlands were identified on or adjacent to the project location. 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location.[helpi The proposed project is located on the southeast side of the Puget sound 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? hel ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. eipj The shoreline, waterward from the bottom -of -slope is sand, pebble and cobble sediments. There are some beach debris, old creosote pile, a tire bulkhead and a grounded barge frame on intertidal areas. Above ordinary high water there is an unstable beach access stairwell. There are no proposed changes to upland areas which contain both developed and forested areas. There are existing upland buildings, paved parking areas and driveways. Vegetated bank and upland areas primarily contain native species. Some upland areas are landscaped with non-native plant species. There is a variety of native species above ordinary high water including Douglas fir, western hemlock, big leaf maple and red alder over beaked hazelnut, oceanspray, sword fern, fireweed, thimbleberry, salal, and assorted grasses. Invasive plant species include English ivy and some Himalayan blackberry. Upland access and southern boundary of the parcels is delineated by Dash Point Road. The northernmost extent of the parcel .boundary abuts the Puget Sound. Intertidal salt marsh and aquatic vegetation was not observed aside from Ulm lactuca Species. Habitat conditions are fair. There are no calm inlet areas or aquatic vegetation which draw juvenile fish species. The shoreline is natural with a steep eroding slope. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. hL Wi The subject property is currently used as a retreat center for the Archdiocese of Seattle. The shoreline is visited by retreat center visitors via a dilapidated stairwell. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. a[ g Property to the west is owned by the Boy Scouts of America and has one building. Properties to the southwest, south and east are developed with single family dwellings on lots generally 1-3 acres in size. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. el There are seven (7) buildings (one main building complex in the northern property area near the project area), parking areas, roads and forested areas. Additional facilities include underground utilities (stormwater, sewer, power, and communisations). All existing buildings and associated infrastructure are located landward of the proposed beach access and bulkhead. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. he[ el To access the site from Interstate 5, northbound, take the I-705 N/WA-7 S exit (exit 133) towards the City Center/Pacific Avenue and proceed 1 mile, keep right at the fork for 0.5 mile following signs for Interstate 705N/City Center/Washington 7 S/ Pacific Avenue. Keep left at the fork, following signs for City Center and Merg onto I-705 N follow for 0.7 mile. Take the WA-509 N exit toward Port of Tacoma and proceed 0.2 mile. Turn right onto South 21 st Street/WA-509. Continue to follow WA-509 North for 12.1 miles. Turn left after the retreat center sign the drive way will take you to facilities located at 4700 Dash Point Road. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 4 of 14 Part 6—Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. heM The purpose of the proposed project is to provide safe and secure beach access and egress and stabilize the steep eroding bank to protect upland emergency access lane and upland facilities located at 4700 Dash Point Road. The proposed project consists of site reconstruction of an existing beach access stairway and bank stabilization through a combination of rock wall under the stairwell and soft stabilization methods elsewhere using large woody debris structures. The project will occur during the approved fish work window, dates dependent upon approval, and will involve the removal and reconstruction of the destabilized portion of bank stairway and implementation of approximately severt 'i"ndfcd four hundred ten (410) feet of bank stabilization including approximately one hundred ninety (190) feet of rock wall and approximately two hundred twenty (220) feet of soft stabilization treatment with anchored large woody debris and strategically placed boulders. The project also contains compensatory mitigation actions including removal of a grounded barge frame, tires, creosote piles and any other non -natural debris located on the tidelands. The proposed project may include a TESC Plan and SWPP Plan. The project will allow continued use of the site for retreat center with beach access. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. MAU The purpose of the proposed project is provide safe and secure beach access and egress and stabilize the steep eroding bank to protect upland emergency access lane and upland facilities located at 4700 Dash Point Road. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) hei ❑ Commercial ® Residential ® Institutional ❑ Transportation ® Maintenance ® Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that aPAly) [he1pi ❑ Aquaculture ® Bank Stabilization ❑ Boat House ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Bridge ® Bulkhead ❑ Buoy ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Culvert ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Dike / Levee / Jetty ❑ Ditch ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Dredging ❑ Fence ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Fishway ❑ Float ❑ Floating Home ® Geotechnical Survey ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Mining ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Raft ® Other: Removal of grounded barge & non -natural beach debris ❑ Recreational ❑ Retaining Wall (upland) ❑ Road ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ® Stairs ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Utility Line JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 5 of 14 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. LbeM • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-yearfloodplain. Project staging will involve the use of a construction barge arriving at high tide in order to bring a tracked excavator and materials. The use of construction barge to access the project will be at high tide only in order to avoid grounding out on the beach. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures (TESC) measures will be installed along the bank prior to careful removal of stairway. The excavator will clean the area of historic creosote pile bulkhead and the existing footprint. All creosote pile from the previous bulkhead will be disposed of in an approved upland site. The stairwell will be constructed just above OHW and supported using pin point supports. Approximately one hundred ninety (190) linear feet of hard armoring will be used to support the area below the stairway and adjacent areas shown by, and specifications provided in, the geological assessment by GeoResources LLC to be highly likely to incur landslides. Rock wall specifications include installation of the bottom layer of durable rock (WSDOT Standard Specification 9-13.7(1)) at least 18 inches below the ground surface, with rockery boulders placed in uniformly decreasing sizes from the bottom to the top with a battered face no steeper than 1H:6V. Each rock should be placed so that there are at least two points of contact with adjacent rocks. The maximum void between rocks should be less than 6 inches and any larger voids should be filled with chinking rocks. To prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures, a free -draining backfill ballast rock material is recommended (1- to 2- inch quarry spalls), extending at least 12 inches behind the rock wall. Any areas lacking vegetation behind the rock wall during construction will be planted above the quarry spall layer with jute fabric -topped with appropriate soil and native plants according to the Planting Plan (Soundview Consultants LLC, 2012). �'�` Approximately two hundred twenty (220) feet of property shoreline will be stabilized with soft stabilization methods including the use of overlapping and anchored large woody debris (LWD) to the maximum extent possible, and strategically placed boulders anchoring LWD pieces in place to prevent significant movement (GeoResources LLC, 2012 and Revised 2013). Soft and hard bank stabilization and mitigation actions will occur in the one hundred (100)-year flood plain. The bottom foot or two of the stairwell will likely be in the one hundred (100)-year flood plain. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) he( el • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment i] to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: �Leading ap"r val. 2013 End date: A ro . 1 to 2 months from s ® See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentats, etc. bgiw Approximately $100,000 - $400,000 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? h(l ■ If yes, list each agency providing funds_ ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 6 of 14 Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation r] Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area, (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) he[�]I 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. tiel ® Not applicable 7b. Will the project impact wetlands?[helol ❑ Yes ® No - ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? ItLeio ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? tf elnl • If Yes, submit the report, including.data sheets, with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ® No See previous Fish and Wildlife Habitat report for the project (Soundview Consultants LLC, 2012). 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? hel • If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and ftgures with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? Lg!pj • If Yes, submit the plan with=the JARPA package and answer 7g. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was I used to design the plan. eI N.A. 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. JLelp Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or category2 Acres) acres) N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Welland 1")_ The: name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable 4 Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic ards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. hei N.A. 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. Lgm N.A -- -- - JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 7 of 14 Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) Fhelpl ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. Ihelpl ❑ Not applicable To minimize impacts, soft stabilization techniques will be used in place of hard armoring on two hundred twenty (220) feet of the shoreline, stabilization structures will be implemented above OHW to minimize intertidal impacts and minimal vegetation will be disturbed during installation. Any shoreline bank lacking vegetation after installation of the rock wall structure will be planted with native plants according to the Planting Plan (Soundview Consultants, LLC, 2012) to implement no net loss of shoreline vegetation due to the project to the maximum extent practicable. The beach access stairway will be supported by pin point supports so that vegetation and habitat areas can persist under the structure. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will include: use of barged in equipment and supplies instead of driving on the beach; deposition of a small amount of beach nourishment as prescribed by WDFW to replenish any disturbed tidelands; utilizing work windows to avoid unnecessary impacts to listed and sensitive species; use of existing rock and large woody debris materials to practicable extent possible. In addition, there will be no significant excavation of native deposits. The contractor is responsible for the preparation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan to be used for the duration of the project if re uized by pern-iittingagencies. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? het ® Yes ❑ No 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies? Lpjp • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable, explain bclovv why a mitigation plan should not be required. ®Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. helot Mitigation actions proposed include those actions indicated for City of Federal Way Restoration Opportunities including removal of a dilapidated grounded barge, embedded tires, creosote piles and any other non -natural debris located on the tidelands. Proposed actions located at or below MHHW will consist of beach cleanup and removal of anthropogenically derived trash and debris including approximately greater than 463 cubic feet of creosote -treated wood material (timber pile bulkhead, two dolphins, and loose creosote pile), as well as the frame of a dilapidated barge, embedded tires, and all assorted trash (plastic netting, pipe, car parts, grill top, and et cetera). Beach nourishment and careful raking of the beach to restore any disturbed shoreline areas will occur following project actions. Beach nourishment consisting of material suitable for the site and coordinated with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is proposed to be carefully distributed across the beach with the intent of restoring intertidal habitat. The proposed cleanup and restoration actions will open up approximately 3,520 square feet of intertidal habitat and restore some of the natural sediment transport functions interrupted by the existing structures. 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. Lgtpj Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody removed from directly affected JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 8 of 14 waterbody Rockwall and soft Southeast At and above Permanent No fill material is Approximately 7-20 stabilization Puget Sound Ordinary proposed to be placed or 410 linear feet at High Water removed below MHHW and above OHW If no official name for the walerbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1") The name should be consistent with other documents provided- 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 5Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted t7y the work. Enter"permanent" if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. LeM No fill actions are proposed within the waterbody. 89. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. hf ei� No dredging is proposed within the waterbody. Excavation wig eeeLw ateend of the dilapidated barge frame in the intertidal zone to a maximum depth of one (1) foot into the substrate during low tide to allow removal the pollution source and restore the area's natural sediment transport. Sediments will not be removed from the intertidal area. Once the barge has been removed the sediments will be shaped to align with the natural slope. In addition, any material moved for installation of the rock wall will be used in backftliing and preparing an area appropriate for planting of the shoreline bank, as needed, according to the Planting Plan (Soundview Consultants LLC, 2012). Beach nourishment to restore the intertidal areas will be implemented per WDFW. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 9 of 14 Part 9—Additional Information Anv additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. heM Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact City of Federal Way Isaac Conlen (253) 835-2643 july 11, 2012-June 12, 2013 City of Federal Way Deb Bafk Janet Shull (253) 835 -,�^25 2 253-835-2644 June 12, 2013 US Army Corps of joeitlen P.-Hato Randall Perry (206) 764-6901 (360) 734-3156 june 2012 May 21, 2013 Engineers, Seattle District Washington Department Laura Arber (425) 379-2306 June 11, 2013 of Fish and Wildlife Washington State David Pater (425) 649-4253 May 23, 2013 Department of Ecology Washington State Hugh Shipman (425) 649-7095 May 23, 2013 Department of Ecology 9b. Are any of the wetlands or wate(bodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) I-ist? help] • If Yes, list the parameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Qepartmenl of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: http/Avw_ w.ecy.wa-gov/grog amslwq/ 003d1. ® Yes ❑ No Dalco Passage/ Poverty Bay waters to the east of the proposed project site were listed as Category 5 in the 2008 approved 303d assessment for PCB by Tissue sample medium testing methods. 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? hel • Go to htt Jlcf ub.e ov/surf/locatefindex.cfm to help identify the HUC. Puget Sound Watershed -- 17110019 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? hf eM • Go to httpJ/www.eg.wa_gov/servicet.sAis/maps/wna/wria.htm to rind the WRIA 9. WRIA 9 9e. Will the in -water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? ,ei ■ Go to http.Lwvvw_ecy_wa.gov/orograms/wa/sw_gs/criteria.htmf for the standards. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the]ocal shoreline environment designation? rheipi ■ If you don't know, contact the local planning department. JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 10 of 14 ■ For more':nformation, go to: httJtwww. ovl ra ramstsea/smallaws rules1173-261211 des nations.htrnl. ❑ Rural M Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ® Conservancy ❑ Other 9g. What is the Washington Department Of Natural Resources Water Type? LtLeM= • Go to htt :tlwww.dnr.wa. ovlBusinessPermitslTa icstForestPracticesA IicationslPanesli watert in .as x for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? [hpjpj • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. — ® Yes ❑ No Name Of manual: City of Federal Way Addendum to King County Surface Water Design Manual (2010) 9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? h[ ___peI _j • If Yes, lease describe below. ❑ Yes ® No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. ti l N/A 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? her • If Yes, attach it to your DARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. h[�pel } Bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis) — Endangered Bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) - Threatened Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) -Threatened Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshmvylschs) (Puget Sound ESU) —Threatened Humpback whale (Mxhotera novaenaugliae) - Endangered Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriaesa)- Endangered Marbled murrelet (Braclryramphus marmoratus) - Threatened Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Puget Sound DPS) — Threatened Stellar sea -lion (Eumotopias jubatus) (Stellar eastern population) — Threatened Southern resident killer whale (Oninus orca )(Southern Resident DPS) - Endangered Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) - Threatened 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. heI Estuarine intertidal JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 11 of 14 Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at htt ://a s.ec .wa. ov/o as/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@ora.wa.crov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) hf pipj • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/Droarams/sea/sepWe:review.html ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with City of Federal Way (lead agency). The expected decision date is ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (check the box below in 1 Ob.) [hel ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (cheek all that apply.) h[Je LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ® Substantial Development ® Conditional Use ® Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Repair/replacement of beach access stairway Other city/county permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ® Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption — Attach Exemption Form Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes: ❑ $150 check enclosed. (check # ) Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ❑ Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. (Agreement # ❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant -funded WDFW staff. (Agreement # ) ❑ Mineral prospecting and mining. ❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.) JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 12 of 14 Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. (HPA # _ Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete DARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Bank stabilization wbrk designed to be above MHHW - Section 404 permitting likely unnecessary but dependent upon Corps jurisdictional Determination. Beach cleanup work proposed below MHHW— Section 404 approval likely necessary. 401 WQ Cert dependent upon C:oFps Section 404 Jurisdiction. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) Bank stabilization work designed to be above MHHW _ Section 404 permitting likely unnecessary but dependent upon Corps jurisdictional Determination. Beach cleanup work proposed below MHHW — Section 404 approval likelyneces; United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 13 of 14 a U5 Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE SoattlegD sricl es-. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) hem Attachment D: Construction sequence hem Use this attachment only if your project will be constructed in phases or stages. Complete the outline showing the construction sequence and timing of activities, including the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white Phase i or Start Date End Date Stage January 2014, pending approval 1 August 2015 and after Phase 1 actions 2 3 March 2014 September 2015 1 --------------------------------------- AGENCY USE -ONLY � i o Date received: Agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s)• TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT hf eM - Project Name: Archbishop Brunett Retreat ; Center (ABRC) — Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs —Revised ------------------------------------- Activity Description As detailed above in JARPA Part 6 and geotechnical report with revisions (GeoResources, 2013): • Construct approximately 190 linear feet of rock armoring • Repair stair beach access • Cleanup/ mitigation and beach nourishment actions As detailed above in JARPA Part 6 and geotechnical report with revisions (GeoResources, 2013): Construct approximately 220 linear feet of soft stabilization treatments using large wood and rocks If you require this document in another format, contact the Governors Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV-023-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Attachment D Revision 2012.1 Page 1 of 1 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. hf elpl 11 a. Applicant Signature (required) hf eM certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Edward J. Foster 4;;kff )'6 � f Director of Property & Construction. Service ' a Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature D�,°{ _ / 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [heV I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). hel Not required if project is on existing rights -of -way or easements. Date I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Prop rty Owner Sig tore Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA ublication number: ENV-019-09 rev. 06-12 JARPA Revision 2012.1 Page 14 of 14 I w � W ¢ n U Q� F- W N� act �]R.WC7� A•+¢ d Uua :D WW z 1 K- w 5 �dG U � � �H W zIX �z uz wwnZO w,c w En:.� WcWC7UU¢UUxwI�UL70 ,.., ry era �h v� �a c� ao c► a .�� � � � � .�.� ,� °r+° Q� Cq sl C) (D 44t u (9) Int z I -61 "0 LLJ Lli 14SMN.1 1RITJDNI SMl- hISINV Id `(I'l'rlVN"mu'xT:l-'l ado.'.m ,kvluls'Nvzl vizvm amiv:lq li'AAO)J'JCIFFV CI-JS CNV TION y 77777777777-, AdS Sk 81�1 silloffou 02 JCI3TO T JAUNN, UIL'A MLVIAIM3 ,WK. VII a ALON (u "0 aull IHK Mo Ol vuuv CD rl Vt mu. eq 19'tl AM I W Gl 0 O P N W � z W CD l [.1 � 141E � u �! � � W L. w ~ �i-•1 � A U Z fi • 1'i >t . } r � a o o � LLr w O F 1•�';.:+ffi7i � '� _ uLLW ua h W it W a � � 0 F� Fri j - 41 J -�,lk - w cn • � N F Z � Z Q ❑ O LL O W J N m Z W❑ O N WW LL i w w W m n W p t LL w j y Z. f a rp N O f O N O > Z S Q Z= Q W r C Y o FF LL ¢ LL LL o rc a m W Z. w rc 3 w ¢ N _ N W N K c W e m W O N W Y O M. W V w y W 2 W QZQ ¢ 3 N 7 rW.G p Q Y QQ W 3 W K J W O Y Y O O Y O O Z ° o f f 2s N K �? m y <�jgw ZZw> VLLS m W LLx I i 3 x E f wl 3ppyj �jaNK W r of a m a JO NO QO W W J.'`• u a Jiv JQ rc ^� $o J'o ¢�' apio J m K-- ^ tl��vmOZUF> r u: s- u� t- c4 � o 5 � 44. � - x � oa r U - v YY�G'G �. O Q4 Owa��w Y ��-► K Ulcnl x OEM d F =�SS� fs a a c 0,-e E w J x % c W n! T O m o„ x Yq�q ,ter .l 1c 4 �� z w W j r� x ul A E a' W�� ¢ CQ od Q�c �xc Qa z O OLT.Wd W G4 W O a -r rl 1 d LU !'i r ti L ow � C CQ R o- 0 i �3 GaRIMSIG id 01-0 6 June 2013 TO: David Pater, Northwest Regional Office, SEA Program FROM: Hugh Shipman, Coastal Geologist, SEA Program SUBJECT: The Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way: Comments on proposal to rebuild beach stairs and to construct shoreline erosion control The following comments relate to the proposal by the Seattle Archdiocese to rebuild their damaged beach stairs and to construct an erosion control structure at the base of the bluff at the Palisades, or Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC), in Federal Way. My comments are based on the materials provided by the City of Federal Way, including the geotechnical report prepared by GeoResources (July 31, 2012), along with background materials including aerial photographs (recent and historic) and geologic maps. We participated in a site visit with city staff and with the applicant's representatives on May 23`d, 2013. In addition, I walked the beach below the site on March 15th, 2013. 1 have photographs from both field visits. My comments generally focus on the geologic aspects of beach and the bluff. Overview This project has two elements. The first, which appears to have initiated the concern, involves the repair and stabilization of the damaged stairway. The stairway would be rerouted, the supports improved, and the failed pile bulkhead at the base would be replaced. This would involve a fairly short stretch of shoreline. The second element is to control erosion along the toe of the bluff along the entire property, a total of over 700 feet. The objective is to reduce toe erosion and in this way, reduce the possibility of a future damage to improvements at the top of the bluff (the ABRC structure and the roadway at the crest of the slope). In my opinion, these are largely separable. The former is relatively straightforward, both from a geologic and a regulatory perspective. The latter, although fairly simple in concept, raises significant questions about its necessity to protect upland structures, its conformance with the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program, and its environmental impacts. Site Description The Archbishop Brunett (Palisades) Retreat Center is located at the top of a high coastal bluff about 1/4 mile west of Dumas Bay. The site has approximately 700 feet of north -facing shoreline. Development, which includes the retreat center itself and an access road that encircles the buildings, lie on the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way Hugh Shipman 6 June 2013 relatively level upland surface south of the bluff crest. The northeastern corner of the retreat center, closest to the bluff, lies 65-70 feet from the top of the slope. The access road loops around the waterward side of the structure, following the edge of the bluff. Drainage of the upland appears to be away from the bluff edge — either to the south or to adjacent ravines on both the east and west sides of site. Bluff. The 170-180 foot high bluff is fairly heavily forested, primarily with deciduous alder and maple. The only major modification on the bluff itself is the stairs to the beach, along with the failed timber bulkhead at their base. The slope in the western and central portions of the site appears to have two parts, a steeper slope towards the beach and a more gradually slope at the top. This shows in the cross - sectional sketch provided by GeoResources that also locates their three boreholes. The topography changes to the east, where the road curves landward. In this area, there is a distinct knoll between the road and the bluff, and the upper bluff itself drops much more steeply. The bluff consists largely of sandy materials. GeoResources drilled three exploratory holes, all indicating modestly or uncompacted sand to depths of 10-30 feet. They observed some wet zones, but no major aquicludes, and no significant seepage zones were identified on the bluff face. My more general observations in the field were consistent with their findings and I would have no reason to question their basic evaluation of the geology of the slope. In the field, the possibility was discussed that an underlying glacial unit, perhaps till, could be an influence on the upper portion of the slope but this was not reported in the geotechnical report nor observed in the field. Scattered large boulders on the beach may also support the idea of the till being present in the vicinity. There is evidence of historic and ongoing sliding of materials on the bluff face. The Coastal Zone Atlas (Washington Department of Ecology, 1979) shows the bluff to be unstable based on its steep slopes and materials. The Atlas also notes a larger recent slide at the eastern edge of the property. In the field, we observed numerous small slides both along the toe of the bluff and on the slope itself. A scarp on the lower bluff, extending eastward about 300' from the vicinity of the stairway, was mapped by GeoResources and interpreted as a single slide. There is also a shallow slide immediately west of the stair landing that extends perhaps 40-50 feet along the shore and up the bank — it is this slide that has undermined the lower portion of the beach stairs. In general, this pattern of toe erosion and small landslides on an otherwise well -vegetated bluff is consistent with relatively low rates of long-term shoreline retreat. Establishing a precise rate requires detailed reference points and long-term measurements, but we find that 1-2 feet/decade is a reasonable estimate for moderate energy Puget Sound shorelines (this would correspond to a 3 foot loss every 15-30 years at each point along the shore — and would translate to a bluff retreat rate of 10-20 feet/century). This is a general estimate and does not preclude the possibility of a large landslide if the necessary contributing geologic conditions were present. Beach. The beach below the site is relatively sandy, marked by fallen trees, driftwood, and a number of large glacial boulders. We also noted numerous old tires scattered on the beach. The base of the stairs 2 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way Hugh Shipman 6 June 2013 is supported by stacked tires, but I'm not sure whether this was the source of the tires, or whether the available tires were used to shore up the stairs. Comparisons between my March and May visits suggest several inches of sandy deposition on the upper beach along much of the shoreline during the spring, which is not unusual on sandy beaches. There are two dolphins (bundled clusters of piles), located about 400 feet apart, below the site near low tide. The western dolphin lies directly seaward (north) of the base of the beach stairs and is associated with what appear to be the remains of an old barge, the grid -like framework of which extends across the beach. The dolphins and the barge are clearly evident in air photos from 1977 and presumably are remnants of a much earlier use of this site. The beach itself is very sandy to the east of the barge/stairs, but the upper beach narrows and the sand thins west of the stairs and bulkhead. This suggests that longshore transport is from east to west and that the barge maybe acting as a groin, trapping sandy sediment. In addition, the most significant toe erosion was immediately west of this area and this may have contributed to the damage to the pile bulkhead and possibly the landslide that damaged the stairs. Stairs and existing bulkhead. The beach stairs provide access from the Retreat Center to the beach, via a trail and a series of stairways. The stairs are supported by shallow pin piles or metal posts. The relatively short posts supporting the lower section of the stairs have been undercut by the shallow landslide, causing the stairs to rotate and fail. According to the sign at the top of the trail, the stairs were closed in late 2010. The remains of a creosoted wood soldier -pile bulkhead form a landing at the base of the stairs. The piles have rotated outward or simply washed away and any backfill has been eroded out. From the age, condition, and configuration of the piles, I suspect that this landing may possibly be associated with the barge and dolphins and may predate the construction of the stairs. Proposed Work 1. Beach Stairs The applicant proposes to rebuild the damaged beach stairs and to build a rock bulkhead to protect the base of the stairs from further erosion. The routing of the lower section of the stairs would be modified to avoid the area of more recent sliding. The design of the stairs would be similar to the current design, with support provided by metal pin piles. The bulkhead would be a conventional rock bulkhead or rockery design built as close to the toe of the bluff (Ordinary High Water, OHW ) as feasible. Repair of the existing stairway seems straightforward. It addresses the loss of use of an existing beach access and improves the overall safety of the stairs. The engineering of the new stairway should consider the possible need for deeper pile support than what was used for the old stairs, while also evaluating the risk that installing piles might precipitate additional sliding. 3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way Hugh Shipman 6 June 2013 Replacement of the existing pile bulkhead provides protection to the base of the stairway. Its length should be only what is necessary to protect the stairway and should not exceed the extent of the previous structure. The previous structure extends seaward of the toe of the bluff and a new one would be built at the toe of the bluff (OHW), reducing the overall impacts on the shoreline. The existing pile structure is probably much larger than what is necessary to protect the stairway and if the bottom landing for the stairs is adequately supported on larger, deep piles or posts, the size of the landing and the amount of armor might be reduced. This would minimize impacts and intrusion onto the beach and possibly reduce other project costs. 2. Shoreline Bulkhead The other element of this proposed project is the construction of an erosion control structure along the remaining 700' of the property. This would be a completely new structure. My understanding is that the applicant is proposing a conventional rock bulkhead along 380' of shoreline, corresponding to the area of more recent sliding on the lower slope. They also propose an additional 340' of soft shore stabilization that would extend to the eastern edge of their property. The primary objective of this structure is to reduce toe erosion by wave action, thereby reducing the possible threat of upslope landsliding. While this new structure would likely reduce toe erosion, it would not necessarily prevent continued failures higher on the bluff. In addition, there is little indication that the upland development is at significant risk, let alone imminent threat, from a deeper - seated failure, or that such a failure would be mitigated by actions at the toe of the slope. If there is a significant risk to the structures, then a more detailed slope stability analysis would provide useful information about plausible geometries and mechanisms of slides and the efficacy of various mitigation measures. If built properly, the rock bulkhead would reduce or eliminate toe erosion, but in doing so it would adversely impact the function of this shoreline as a feeder bluff. The bulkhead would also displace much of the lower fringe of riparian vegetation and the wood along the uppermost portion of the beach. Concerns about the environmental impacts of shoreline armoring on Puget Sound have been described extensively in other documents (e.g. Shipman 2010, Johannessen and MacLennan 2007, Williams and Thom 2001) As I understand the proposal, the "soft" stabilization would consist of a relatively continuous structure of anchored logs, secured in places with large boulders or other methods. It incorporates natural elements, but in a fairly unnatural manner. This is intended to be a static structure, not a naturally dynamic solution such as purely biotechnical methods or beach nourishment. To the degree that it's effective, it would reduce the erosion of the bluff and impact the feeder bluffs as a source of sediment the local beaches. In our experience, anchored wood structures are also highly susceptible to failure in high water storm events and often lead to requests for repairs using more conventional types of structures. 4 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way Hugh Shipman 6 June 2013 I have two additional notes on the construction of rock bulkheads, either in conjunction with the beach stairs or with the larger stabilization proposal. • Ordinary High Water on this shoreline is likely at the toe of the bluff. A rock bulkhead would be typically be built at the toe and would extend 5-6' waterward of OWHM, covering the uppermost strip of the beach. This is common practice, but we should be recognize that statements about bulkheads on bluffs being built at or landward of OHWM are often technically incorrect. • A question has been raised about the height of the new bulkhead and whether a variance is required. As discussed earlier, I think there may be some confusion about how this is applied. In my opinion, if a conventional bulkhead is built, it should be built sufficiently high to avoid regular overtopping, which I believe is consistent with the applicant's proposal. Conclusion This is a remarkable stretch of relatively natural beach that has been identified in Federal Way's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as important and worthy of protection Specifically, the SMP and its associated restoration plan note the importance of avoiding new bulkheads along this unique stretch of intact feeder bluffs west of Dumas Bay. The project has two elements. The first, rebuilding and stabilizing the beach stairs, is fairly straightforward. The second, trying to control toe erosion along the entire property, is much more ambitious and carries more significant environmental impacts. Although it might reduce toe erosion, it would not necessarily prevent continued slides on the upper slope, and no evidence has been presented that indicates an imminent threat to the upland improvements. The proponents have proposed to reduce the impacts of the project with the use of softer erosion control methods along a portion of the site, but these would still diminish geological and ecological functions and haven't been demonstrated to be necessary to protect the upland structures. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments, or if there are other aspects of the project I neglected to cover. References Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. (2007). Beaches and bluffs of Puget Sound, Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Technical Report 2007-04. Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, 26 pp. Shipman, H. (2010). The geomorphic setting of Puget Sound: Implications for shoreline erosion and the impacts of erosion control structures. Pug et Sound Shorelines and the impacts of Armoring -- Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009. H. Shipman, Dethier, M.N., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh, K.L., and Dinicola, R.S. (eds), U.S. Geological Survey. Special Investigations Report 2010-5254: 19- 33. 5 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way Hugh Shipman 61une 2013 Washington Department of, E. (1979). Plate 10. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington: King County. Olympia, Ecology. Williams, G. D. and R. M. Thom (2001). Marine and estuarine shoreline modification issues, Aquatic Habitat Guidelines White Paper, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 1.1 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. TECHNICAL MEMO 1205G3 DATE: July 31, 2012 TO: Gus Ripple Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle FROM: Glenn D. Hartmann, Principal Investigator RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. No cultural resources were identified within the project APE and no further cultural resources investigations are recommended. Please contact our office should you have any questions about our findings and/or recommendations. RECEIVED AUG I,7 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Author: Melanie Diedrich and Sonja Kassa Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishgp Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Im rovements Project Federal Way, King CoupV, WA Date of Report: July 31, 2012 County (ies): King Section: 11 Township: 21 North Range: 03 East Quad: Tacoma North Acres: less than 1 acre CD Submitted? M Yes ❑_No PDF of Report? Does this replace a draft? Yes Z No Archaeological Sitesllsoiates Found or Amended? F1 Yes Z No TCP(s) found? Yes M, No Does this report fulfill a DABP permit requirement? Yes # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: REPORT CHECK LIST Report should contain the following items: • Clear objectives and methods • A summary of the results of the survey • A report of where the survey records and data are stored • A research design that: • Details survey objectives • Details specific methods • Details expected results • Details area surveyed including map(s) and legal locational information • Details how results will be incorporated into the planning process Please submit reports unbound. Please be sure that any electronic version of a report submitted to DAB? has all of its figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, cover sheet, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. Please check that all digital files display correctly when opened. Management Summary Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) conducted a cultural resources assessment for a bulkhead replacement at The Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center at the Palisades on 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington. No archaeological sites or ethnographically named places are within the project vicinity. CRC field survey did not result in the identification of potentially significant cultural resources located within the project area. No further assessment work is recommended. 1. Administrative Data Report Title; Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA Authors : Melanie Diedrich and Sonja Kassa Report Date: July 31, 2012 Location: The project is located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington (Figure 1). Legal Description: The project is located in Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 03 East, Willamette Meridian (see Figure 1). USGS 7.5' Topographic Map (s): Tacoma North, WA (1997) Total Area Involved: less than 1 acre Objective {Research Design : This assessment was developed with the goal of ensuring that no cultural resources are disturbed during construction of the proposed project and to determine the potential for any as yet unrecorded cultural resources within the project area. CRC's work was intended, in part, to assist in addressing state regulations pertaining to the identification and protection of cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53), and compliance with Section 106 ofNHPA. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves. Under Section 106, agencies involved in a federal undertaking must take into account the undertaking's potential effects to historic properties (36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)). Assessment methods consisted of review of ethnographic and historic references, aerial photographs and regional archaeological literature and field survey. This assessment utilized a research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely nature and location of historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE), as well as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36CFR800.4 (b)(1)). CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 1 Recorded Cultural Resources Present: Yes [ ] No [x] No archaeological or historic sites have been previously recorded within the project. The closest archaeological sites are two precontact sites located about one mile northeast of the project area. Archaeological site K1732 contains a thin layer of shell midden on a wave eroded beach terrace with several pieces of fire -modified rock (FMR) and remains of local shellfish species (Shong and Miss 2006). Archeological site K158 is a precontact camp and shell midden containing a fist sized rock and flakes, which were collected (Moura 1980). The site is located on a heavily forested bank of Lakota Creek containing shallowly buried materials in both disturbed and undisturbed contexts. Many historic properties not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places have been recorded around the project area mainly domestic single-family homes built between 1918 and the late 1960's. A property at 4700 SW Dash Point Road, presumably The Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center at the Palisades, has been recorded as a historic social clubhouse built in 1956. Previously Unrecorded Cultural Resources Identified and Recorded: Yes [ ] No [x] No previously unrecorded archaeological or historic sites were identified within the project. Project Background: The project is located at The Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) at the Palisades on 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington (Figure 1). The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is replacing the current bulkhead at the retreat center. The project will remove approximately 60 linear feet of timber/creosote bulkhead and construct approximately 400 linear feet of rock bulkhead, adding approximately 300 feet of soft armoring and will renovate the stairs from the lower bluff down to the beach. For the purposes of this assessment, the area of potential effects (APE) for this project is understood to be the area described above. 2. Background Research Background research conducted in May 2012. Archival Sources Checked: DAHP WISAARD There are no recorded archaeological sites in the project area. The DAHP files check was conducted in May 2012. Web Soil Survey The Web Soil Survey mapped in the project area is Alderwood and Kitsap soils with a slope of 25-70%. Alderwood soils consist of gravelly and very gravelly sandy loam and are formed in basal till parent material mixed with some volcanic ash on moraines and till plains. Kitsap soils are formed on terraces in lacustrine deposits, and consist of silt loam underlain by stratified silt to silty clay loam. Coastal beach areas occur above mean tide, are swept by storm waves, and composed of sand and gravel with a slope of 1- 5% (USDA NRCS 2012). CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 2 Library [x] Various historical, archaeological, and ethnographic references in CRC's library. Museum [ ] Historical Society [ ] Context Overview: The project is located in the City of Federal Way on the shoreline of Puget Sound in between Dumas Bay and Dash Point. Context overview for this project included ethnographic and historic references, aerial photographs and regional archaeological literature that is appropriate to the project area (Berger 2008; Luttrell 2007; Shong and Miss 2006). The contemporary topography and surface geology of the Puget Sound area were shaped by multiple glaciations that occurred during the end of the Pleistocene (Kruckeberg 1991: 12). The Vashon Stade is the most recent glacial event occurring in the Puget Sound and has shaped much of the region's contemporary landscape. Glacial advance and retreat scoured and compacted underlying geology while melt waters carved drainage channels into glacial outwash deposits (Downing 1983; Booth et al. 2003). Locally mapped soils consist of Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep, and coastal beaches (USDA NRCS 2012). Coastal beach areas occur above mean tide, are swept by storm waves, and composed of sand and gravel (Snyder et al. 1973: 13). The Alderwood soils consist of gravelly and very gravelly sandy loam and are formed in basal till parent material with some volcanic ash on moraines and till plains. Kitsap soils formed on terraces and dissected terrace fronts in lacustrine deposits, and consist of silt loam underlain by stratified silt to silty clay loam. Federal Way is located in the Puget Lowland physiographic province that is generally believed to have become ice -free and suitable for occupation by approximately 11,000 years ago (Franklin and Dyrness 1973; Kruckeberg 1991). Local and regional studies have enabled an archaeological and historical synthesis that allows for a research design for the project area (Nelson 1990). A general understanding of approximately the last 10,000 years of human occupation has emerged within the Puget Sound. The Federal Way area is within the traditional territory of the Southern Coast Salish a Southern Lushootseed speaking peoples represented today by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Suttles and Lane 1990:485). The neighboring Puyallup and Duwamish tribes likely used the area of the project vicinity as well. The Muckleshoot Tribe comprises groups who traditionally lived and used resources in the Green and White River valleys and adjacent plateaus (Suttles and Lane 1990). The name Muckleshoot comes from the name for a place, BE Ukcul, translated as "where a certain medicinal plant grows" (Waterman 2001: 171) on Muckleshoot Hill. A trail network connected Muckleshoot villages on inland river valleys to the Puget Sound shoreline where marine resources were collected (Noel 1980:29). Puyallup territory was located south of Federal Way, with winter villages in the area surrounding the Tacoma Narrows (Smith 1940b; Waterman ca.1920, 2001). An early twentieth century ethnographer T. T. Waterman recorded three Lushootseed place names on the Puget Sound shoreline around Dumas Bay and southwestern end of Poverty Bay locate east of the project. Qa'gahwEts or "crabapples," is the name listed for "a very small creek at Buenna," south of Redondo Creek, within northeast of the project area (Waterman 2001: 75). CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 3 A large white boulder on the shoreline northeast of Dumas Bay features in Duwamish oral history. The boulder is known as Blanket Rock or Kokowi'ltsa, translated by Waterman (2001: 75) as "blanket of marmot skins," because its surface appeared "folded and crinkled" like a blanket. The name Stsoxwa'bats, translated as "chokecherry," was given for a stream just west of Blanket Rock, where there was a low cliff and numerous chokecherry trees (Waterman 2001: 75). This stream appears to flow into the eastern end of Dumas Bay and may be what is now called Lakota Creek. To the west of the project the Puyallup believed Dash Point was "possibly" the home of Chinook Wind. Euro-Americans arriving in the region sought to reallocate the land for farming, logging, and homesteading. In 1854, following negotiations between the United States government and native peoples including the Puyallup and Muckleshoot, the Treaty of Medicine Creek led to the abandonment of most southern Puget Sound villages and compelled Indian people to relocate to one of three reservations (Ruby and Brown 1992). Representatives of the Duwamish were signatory parties to the Point Elliott Treaty in 1855. Both treaties dissolved Indian title to their traditional lands, and by 1855-56 the federal government began to contain dissatisfied Indian people on reservation lands by force. Following the Puget Sound Indian Wars, first in 1857 then in 1873, the Puyallup Reservation was enlarged to 18,032 acres. As shown on the 1874 General Land Office (GLO) map the Puyallup Indian Reservation is located just southwest of the project area along what appears to be the current boundary between King and Pierce counties. Euro-American settlement of the Federal Way area began in the early 1870s with the establishment of Stone's Landing currently known as Redondo. Local late -nineteenth and early - twentieth century economic pursuits included subsistence farming, logging, and sawmills. The 1897 Land classification sheet, Washington, Tacoma quadrangle shows that the project area was logged and being restocked. Prior surveys of the project area namely the 1868 GLO map and the 1876-77 Section XI Us Coast Survey, Topography of the Puget Sound show no cultural features recorded in the project area. Kroll's 1912 King County Township Atlas shows that the project area belonged to W M 011ard, who according to the 1910 United States Federal Census immigrated to the US in 1894 and at the time was living with his mother, brother and sister. No further record was found. Based upon reviewed cultural and historic information the project is located in an area with low potential to contain archeological sites. The project area has been subject to some disturbance from previous construction activities and erosion due to its exposure to coastal elements. Shell midden sites are the most common type of pre -contact sites recorded for the southern Puget Sound and typically occur on shorelines of protected inlets or near mouths of streams (Wessen and Stilson 1987). Due to the proximity of marine and freshwater resources, the area would have been attractive for resource gathering activities. Types of pre -contact archaeology that may be expected in the project area could reflect short-term, repeated occupations, fishing, shellfish collecting, or other domestic, subsistence, or ceremonial activities, and may include faunal remains, FMR, features, and stone tools. Types of historic period archaeology that may be encountered would likely be related to local logging operations or homesteading. CRC Technical Memorandum Project 12056-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 4 3. Fieldwork Field investigations were conducted by Melanie Diedrich and Sonja Kassa; notes and photographs are on file at CRC. The survey plan was to scope out the extent of the project APE by way of a walkover survey, followed by a more detailed pedestrian survey that would help determine the location of shovel probes or shovel -scrapes along the hillside. When Melanie and Sonja arrived, the survey team was already onsite. Sam Keller, the ABRC grounds keeper, made the walkover survey with the archaeologists and indicated the property boundaries; no flagging, taping, or other markers indicating the project APE were evident. At the top of the bluff the vegetation was quite thick, with less than five percent visibility. However, as descent was made on the damaged stairway, portions of the embankment that had slumped exposed the sediments beneath. According to verbal communication with Sam Keller, no ground -disturbing work at the top of the bluff was currently planned and was, therefore, considered outside the APE. Therefore, survey was limited to the lower part of the embankment near the beach. The ABRC owns 700 feet of shoreline; a replacement rock bulkhead is indicated along part of that, reaching perhaps 5 — 8 feet in height, with soft armoring proposed for the remainder (no finalized plans are available to date). The west property line lies about 30 feet from the west end of the existing bulkhead, where the most dramatic erosion, requiring the closure of the staircase, occurred since 2009. Pedestrian survey was made walking west to east along the beach, from property line to property line, noting exposed sediment surfaces, and climbing the first bench of slide slump when necessary to observe the sediments (Figure 2). Some toe -holds dug into the embankment were required to climb the eroded slope at the western boundary. The eroded bank under the staircase was mottled silt and silt clay overlain with light brown coarse sandy loam and sand. Nothing now remains of the sediments that once stood behind the existing bulkhead, the bulkhead piles now protrude from the level beach. This area between the bulkhead piles and outlying rocks is where the proposed viewing tower would be located (Figure 3). As the survey proceeded, it became clear that any sediments at or near beach level that once may have contained remains of cultural material were now gone and the plants along the base of the slope are being undercut by the tides (Figure 4). A large exposed cutbank was encountered about 400 — 450 feet along the beach survey. This vertical exposure revealed the silt clay sediments well and contained no evidence of cultural materials, negating the need for shovel probes at this location (Figure 5). At the eastern end of the property, an overview photo of the high bank showed at least three scarp exposures exhibiting what appeared to be the same sediments upslope (Figure 6). Because the sediments were readily visible, and because of the instability of the slope, archaeologists determined that shovel probes were not necessary or practical. CRC did not identify any locations within the APE with a high potential to contain subsurface cultural resources. Other than modem garbage washed up on the beach within the tidal zone, no cultural material was observed. Total Area Examined: The entire APE (less than 1 acre). CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 5 Areas not examined: None. Dates of Surve : May 22, 2012 Weather and -Surface V'isibili : Weather conditions were initially sunny, then cloudy and overcast. Visibility of exposed surfaces was excellent. 4. Results Cultural Resources Identified: None. Project Conclusions Findings and Recommendations: This location at the base of an unprotected bluff is an unlikely location for cultural activity to have occurred and has a low potential to contain cultural material; most shell midden, food processing camps, or village sites are found on protected inlets or stream sides. Survey along the beach revealed that winter storms and tides have severely eroded the base of the slope defining the northern property boundary of the ABRC. Groundwater and storm -water have further de -stabilized the silt -clay sediments, causing slump -type landslides that are exacerbated by the wind and tides at lower elevations along the slope. Visual survey of the length of the property along this shoreline has revealed that if there had been archaeological deposits here at one time, they are no Ionger. Additionally, if there are archaeological deposits upslope currently covered by vegetation, slope stabilization by light armoring may be a means of protection against further loss. No cultural material was observed, no further cultural resource work is recommended. In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities do result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate area and contact made with the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work should be immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and secured against further disturbance, and contact effected with law enforcement personnel, DAHP and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian Tribes. No historic properties affected [x] Historic properties affected [ ] No adverse effect to historic properties [ ] Adverse effect to historic properties [ ] Attachments: Figures [x] Photographs [x] Other [x] Copies of letters sent by CRC to cultural resources staff at the Duwamish Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and correspondence with the Suquamish Tribe. CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 6 5. Limitations of this Assessment No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for prehistoric sites, historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from our analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information identified in this report, and on our field investigation and observations as described herein. Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report. They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 7 6. References Berger, Margaret 2008 Cultural resources Assessment for the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall Realignment Project, Federal Way, King County, Washington. Technical Report #352. On File at Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc., Bainbridge Island. Booth, D. B., H. H. Waldron, and K. G. Troost 2004 Geologic map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington. I :24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM-2854. USGS, Washington, D.C. Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Oregon. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Luttrell, Charles T. 2007 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Dash Point State Park Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Moura, Guy F. 1980 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45KI58.On file at DAHP, Olympia. Nelson, Charles M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 481484. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London. Shong, Michael and Christian J. Miss 2006 Shell Midden Discovery During a Proposed Bulkhead Installation in the Lakota Community of Federal Way, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Smith, Marian W. 1940a The Puyallup of Washington. In Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes, edited by Ralph Linton, pp. 3-36. D. Appleton -Century Company, New York. 1940b The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Press, New York. CRC Technical Memorandum Project 12056-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 8 Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle 1973 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University, Agricultural Research Center. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. United States Federal Census 1910 United States Federal Census 1910. Electronic Document. http://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=l &db=19l Ouscenindex&rank=l &new=1 &MSAV=1&msT=1&gss=angsd&gsfn x=XO&gsln=ollard&gsln x=XO&msypn ftp= Federal+Way%2c+King%2c+Washington%2c+USA&msypn=65442&msypn_PInfo=8101 1652393101213248150101 1603165442101&cpxt=l&catBucket=rstp&uidh=hv6&cp=12&pcat =35&fh=4&h=170723862&recoff=. Accessed May 16, 2012. United States Surveyor General (US SG) 1868 General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, Willamette Meridian. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland. 1874 General Land Office Map, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, Willamette Meridian. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland. Waterman, T. T. ca. 1920 Puget Sound Geography. Manuscript No. 1864, National Anthropological Archives, Washington, D.C. 2001 sda?da? gH,B_dibB 10sucid Yacacyalbix"Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, contributing editors. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Wessen, Gary, and M. Lee Stilson 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process Southern Puget Sound Study Unit. An RP3 Document prepared for Washington State Department of Community Development, On file at DAHP, Olympia. CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 9 T'N7 Ir i 'cli !WAN T , z 7T F �i; •��xYr `r f' Imggwy PBIC: S'11JZ'JFO sr•-i -i•• :C':s •... •-. 7]'1� 3Z-W, eE�vti; s - Eyo i!'S _S t C vAte' 1 '�. �- ,�,• .. • '• -, R-�l . �- � 1 � � I_��• 'lam F ;� , .. Figure 6. Three benches of slump exposed at eastern boundary of property, view is to the south-southwest. Visual examination of lower two levels (nearest the beach) revealed silt/silty clay loam overlain with sand. CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 13 Letters sent by CRC to cultural resources staff at the Duwamish Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and correspondence with the Suquamish Tribe Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. May 14, 2012 Duwamish Tribe Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman 4705 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA Dear Ms. Hanson: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. The project is located in Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 Fast Willamette Meridian at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is requesting this assessment prior to improvements to their bulkhead and beach access located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way. The project will remove approximately 60 linear feet of timber/creosote bulkhead and construct approximately 100 linear feet of rock bulkhead, adding 100-400 feet of soft armoring and renovate the stairs from bluff to the beach. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Depw went of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and cthnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D. Hartmann President(Principal Investigator PO Box 10668, BAINOW)GE ISLAND, WA 98110 PHONE 206.855.9020 - info®crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 14 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. May 14, 2012 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Laura Murphy, Archaeologi st/Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA Dear Laura: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. The project is located in Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East Willamette Meridian at 47oo SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is requesting this assessment prior to improvements to their bulkhead and beach access located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way. The project will remove approximately 60 linear feet of timber/creosote bulkhead and construct approximately 100 linear feet of rock bulkhead, adding 100-400 fcct of soft armoring and renovate the stairs from bluff to the beach. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DABP), review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnograpbies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I ;Ipprcciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D. Hartmann President/Principal Investigator PO BOX 10660, BAINBRIDGE HAND, WA 98110 PHONE206.855.9020 - info®crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 15 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. May 14, 2012 Puyallup Tribe of Indians Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources 3009 East Portland Ave Tacoma, WA 98404 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA Dear Brandon: ] am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the rcqucst of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. The project is located in Section 11. Township 21 North, Range 3 East Willamette Meridian at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is requesting this assessment prior to improvements to their bulkhead and beach access located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way. The project will remove approximately 60 linear feet of timberlereosotc bulkhead and construct approximately 100 linear feet of rock bulkhead, adding 100-400 feet of soft armoring and renovate the stairs from bluff to the beach. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D. Hartmann President/Principal Investigator PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 PHONE206.055.9020 - info®crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum Project 120513-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 16 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. May 14, 2012 Suquamish Tribe Stephanie Trudel PO Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA Dear Stephanie: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc, (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. The project is located in Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East Willamette Meridian at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in Federal Way, King County, Washington. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is requesting this assessment prior to improvements to their bulkhead and beach access located at 4700 SW Dash Point Road in red era] Way. The project will remove approximately 60 linear feet of timber/creosote bulkhead and construct approximately I line :r feet of rock bulkhead, adding 100-400 feet of soft armoring and renovate the stairs from bluff to the beach. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations wi-11 be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D. Hartmann President(Principal Investigator PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 PHONE 206.855.9020 - infbomwaxom CRC Technical Memorandum Project 12056-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, federal Way, WA Page 17 Tribwl Historic Preservation Officer FlshericsDepWment 360/394-9529 Fax 364l5984666 VW SUQUAMlSH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, Washington 98392 May 16, 2012 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 10668 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 RE: Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, Washington Request for Traditional Cultural Property Information Suquamish Tribe Reference: 12-05-16-05 Dear Glenn: Thank you for consulting with the Suquamish Tribe regarding CRC's cultural resources assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, in Federal Way, Washington. The Suquamish Tribe does not have any specific concerns about the proposed project at this time. Please contact me at 360-394-8533 or via e-mail at strudel a uquanrishmsmus as additional project information becomes available. Sincerely, haiiltr F Trvde/ Stephanie E. Trudcl Archaeologist Cc: Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation CRC Technical Memorandum Project 1205G-3 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkhead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, WA Page 18 YEAGER ASSOCIATES REVISED SHORELINE PERMITS CONSISTENCY fty"Te-lWA ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER (ABRC) SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND STAIR REPAIR AUGUST 2012 REV. JULY 10, 2013 DALE YEAGER 12020 45T" AVENUE CT. NW GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98332 MOBILE 253.202.4953 EMAIL: MDYEAGER R@COMCAST.NET ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER SHORELINE PERMITS -COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................3 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ADJACENT LAND USE.....................................................................4 3. NEED FOR THE PROJECT....................................................................................................................5 4. SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROCK BULKHEAD...................................................7 4.1 Project Description 4.2 Required Findings 4.3 Consistency with Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 4.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 4.5 Compliance with FWRC 15.05.040(5) and FWRC 15.05.050 S. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SOFT SHORE STABILIZATION AND REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF BEACH ACCESS STAIRS..................................................................18 5.1 Project Description 5.2 Required Findings 6. SHORELINE VARIANCE FOR ROCK BULKHEAD..............................................................................20 6.1 Project Description 6.2 Required Findings 7. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................23 8. QUALIFICATIONS FOR YEAGER ASSOCIATES........................................................................24 2 ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER SHORELINE PERMITS -CONSISTENCY REPORT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS 1. INTRODUCTION This application on behalf of the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS) is for the replacement of an old deteriorated wood/creosote bulkhead with new rock bulkhead, the installation of new soft shore stabilization, and the repair and replacement of stairs damaged in recent storm events at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way. The areas where the repair, replacement and additional construction activities would occur are within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program and more specifically at the toe of the slope on the beach for the bank stabilization or within approximately 58 feet of the beach for the stair repair. This revised report is in response to comments received in the February 27, 2013 Third Party Review prepared by Landau Associates, June 10, 2013 email correspondence from Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and meetings with City Planners from Federal Way. Revisions are in bold. The original request was for 380 linear feet of rock bulkhead and 340 linear feet of soft shore stabilization. We have since modified our proposal to request 190 feet of rock bulkhead and 220 feet of soft shore stabilization. The revised Geotechnical Report (Schembs, 2013) proposes "190 feet of new hard armor (rock bulkhead) extend east from the west property line. This distance will be adequate to protect the existing stairs. Continuing east from the hard armoring, we recommend that a new soft shore stabilization system approximately 220 feet in length be installed to mitigate wave and tidal erosion below the portion of the bluff down slope of the fire lane, where several area of active shoreline erosion and bluff regression were observed" . These combined activities require three shoreline permit approvals from the City of Federal Way: 1. Approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to construct approximately 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead. This action includes replacing the existing, failed 45 linear feet deteriorated wood/creosote bulkhead located at the foot of the stairs. The proposed 190 feet of rock bulkhead extending east from the west property line would be adequate to protect the existing stairs. 2. Approval of a Shoreline Variance to allow the rock bulkhead to exceed the requirement that the height of a new bulkhead be limited to one foot above Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) elevation. We are requesting a variance of 3 feet 6 inches over the height allowed by Code. We are also requesting a Variance for location of the rock bulkhead. Potentially, there may be some situations where the placement of the rock bulkhead will need to be located slightly water ward of the ordinary high water mark. (OHWM). 3. Approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to: a. construct approximately 220 linear feet of soft shore stabilization to continue east from the rock bulkhead to mitigate wave and tidal erosion below the portion of the bluff downslope of the fire lane; b. repair and replace a portion of the existing stairs damaged in recent storm events. The project will be built in at least two phases depending on availability of funds. The first phase will consist of 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead in addition to the stair repair. The owner anticipates completing the first phase in 2014. Subsequent phases would potentially start in 2015 and completed by 2015. 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ADJACENT LAND USE Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center was established originally by the Redemption Fathers Order in 1956 on approximately 36 acres of land overlooking Dumas Bay on Puget Sound. The property is located at 4700 Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington, in the NW'/ of Section 11, T21N, R3E, W.M., parcel numbers 1121039010 and 1121039029. Both parcels are owned by the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS). Ed Foster (Applicant) of CCAS Property Construction is the owners representative and project applicant. The ABRC property is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. The retreat center with four large adjoining buildings and an emergency access road is located at the top of the steep slope on the high shoreline bank. This main building complex is located approximately 270 feet, measured horizontally, from the shoreline with an overall slope of approximately 90 percent. The main building complex is surrounded by concrete driveway/emergency access road located approximately 15 feet from the top of the shoreline slope at the closest point. The Palisades Retreat Center was renovated in 2001. Permits obtained from the City of Federal Way for the remodel required the upgrading of the fire lane (in both width and surfacing) as part of the building permit requirements. Prior to the improvements, the fire lane consisted of a narrow dirt road/path. In our opinion, widening and paving the fire lane makes the fire lane an appurtenant structure to the main building. The attached Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas aerial photographs show the location of the retreat center and fire lane dating back to at least 1977. The trail extending from the fire lane to the wooden stairs, and the wooden stairs themselves, are visible in these older photographs. In addition to the upland structures, there is an old timber pile bulkhead, old wooden barge, two 3-timber pile "dolphins", and a rubber tire bulkhead along the shoreline below the retreat center. The upper portion of the bluff consists of a 25 to 35-foot tall near vertical head scarp from a prehistoric landslide. The head scarp is situated as close as 10 feet to the fire lane near the east side of the retreat center. A lower, secondary historic head scarp is visible in the central portion of the bluff (east of the stairs). Total topographic relief across the parcel is on the order of 180 feet. A site plan with surveyed topography that shows the existing 0 structures, topography, and approximate limits of the old historic head scarps is included as figure 2. (GeoResouices, 2013). The beach access stairway is located in the northwestern portion of the property from the access road. Recent slide activity has destabilized the beach access stairway from the 58-foot elevation on the bank to the beach. In addition, evidence of slide activity has occurred higher up on the slope as well. The larger areas listed as head scarps on the site appear to be older, historic failures, while the active areas appear limited to the lower, shoreline portion of the bluff. These active areas are consistent with toe erosion that undercuts the lower portion of the bluff, resulting in regressive failures extending up slope. We have approximately located the areas of active and historic movement on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. (GeoResources, 2013). The proximity of the main building complex and emergency access road to the top of bank on the shoreline with destabilized slopes creates a potential for hazardous conditions to upland structures. (Soundview, 2013). The stairway landing is located behind a dilapidated creosote pile bulkhead and embedded tire landing on the beach. The current bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the recently delineated ordinary high water elevation and is no longer acting as a cohesive bulkhead. Wave action is evident behind the bulkhead, allowing slumping of the upland at the toe of the slope and subsequent failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The beach contains some embedded debris including tires, creosote piles, dolphins and the remnants of a grounded barge. (Soundview, 2013). Three smaller outbuildings are located on the adjoining southwest corner of the main parking area and an additional developed area in the southern portion of the site contains three residential structures located greater than 1,200 feet south, measured horizontally, from the shoreline. The project site for the bulkhead replacement, new bulkhead, soft shore stabilization, and stair repair is located on tax parcels 1121039010 and 1121039029 adjacent to the Puget Sound shoreline. The shoreline bank consists of native mixed forest and shrubs. The zoning for the site is Suburban Estates (Low Density Residential 1 DU/5 acres). The shoreline designation is Urban Conservancy. The property to the west is owned by the Boy Scouts of America and contains one building. Single family homes on lots 1-3 acres in size abut the subject site to the south and east. 3. NEED FOR THE PROJECT Recent land slide activity on portions of the shoreline bank has destabilized the lower portion of the beach access stairway. Furthermore, a central portion of the shoreline bank was observed to contain recently slumped areas with tall trees having fallen into the beach. The existing stairway landing is located behind a failed wood/creosote pile bulkhead and embedded tire landing. The existing bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the recently delineated ordinary high water elevation and is no longer acting as a cohesive bulkhead. According -to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report whicWis part of this application, several of the individual piles have fallen or are moving apart from each other and high tidal and wave action is evident behind the bulkhead. This has caused slumping of the upland at the toe of the slope and subsequent failure of the lower portion of the existing stairway. In its current condition the stairs prevent safe access to the beach. In the revised Geotechnical Report dated July 5, 2013, it states that during the 2011/2012 winter storms, a portion of the bluff below the beach access stairs failed as a result of loss of lateral support and over -steepening caused by the toe erosion. According to the report, toe erosion, and subsequent sloughing of the slope above the toe erosion (bluff regression) has continued in both the exposed areas from the 2011/2012 storm, as well as new areas along the shoreline below the retreat center. Toe erosion is visible in numerous locations along the shoreline below the Palisades Retreat Center. Beginning at the western property line, the more recent sloughing from the 2011/2012 winter storms extends from about 35 feet west of the western property line approximately 80 feet to the eastern end of the old timber pile bulkhead. A narrow 15 foot scour area and failure is located east of where the stairs daylight onto the beach. Continuing east from the stairs, there are three distinct areas where toe erosion has resulted in sloughs that range from 30 to 40 feet in width and extend up the bluff about 40 to 50 feet. Approximately 210 feet east of the old barge, toe erosion has resulted in an approximate 55 to 60-foot long, 14 to 18-foot tall, near -vertical exposure of advance outwash. The vertical outcropping is the result of toe erosion and calving of the dense native soils. The eastern margin of the vertical outcropping transitions to an approximate 160-foot long slump that has regressed upslope about 50 feet. These areas are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. Approval of the requested permits will: 1. Maintain the current water -enjoyment use of the property; 2. Provide safe beach access; 3. Stabilize the steep slope and soft sediments with hard armoring in the vicinity of the stairway in order to ensure future stability of the stairway and protect structures located upslope in order to minimize potential future failures; 4. Add additional protection for existing upslope facilities by using soft shore stabilization for 220 linear feet of shoreline per the attached site plan; 5. Protect existing beach habitat and critical environmental processes to the maximum extent possible, while fulfilling purpose and need for the project; 6. Restore compromised intertidal habitat by removing anthropogenic debris, such as the creosote pile bulkhead, individual creosote pile and pile clusters, tires, and other such debris. The following sections of this report addresses the criteria necessary for granting approval of the shoreline permits required for the rock bulkhead, soft shore stabilization, and stair repair. M 4. SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROCK BULKHEAD 4.1 Project Description Replacing and adding to the existing bulkhead requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit in the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. This proposal is to construct approximately 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead to protect the stairway to the beach. This action includes replacing the existing, failed 45 linear feet deteriorated wood/creosote bulkhead located at the foot of the stairs. The proposed 190 feet of rock bulkhead extending east from the west property line would be adequate to protect the existing stairs. In addition, this application includes a request to exceed the regulatory requirement that rock bulkheads be no higher than one foot above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) elevation. In this instance the MHHW is 11.8 feet elevation; consequently, the regulatory height limit for the rock bulkhead would be 12.8 feet in elevation. Limiting the height of the rock bulkhead to 12.8 feet will not protect the shoreline from continued erosion. Consequently we are requesting a shoreline variance to exceed the regulatory requirement of FWRC 15.05.050. Please see Section 5 for details on the Shoreline Variance. No in water work is proposed, and the only direct impacts to the marine environment and sensitive species will likely be during construction staging of equipment on the beach and during mitigation actions for the project. The project will be built in at least two phases depending on availability of funds. The owner anticipates completing the first phase in 2014, and other phases could start before or after 2020. Construction will commence during the required work window between July 2 and March 2 for protection of potentially present sensitive fish species. Project staging will involve the use of a construction barge arriving at high tide in order to avoid grounding out on the beach. The barge will bring in a tracked excavator and materials. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be installed along the toe of the slope prior to removal of the damaged stairs. The excavator will clean the area of historic wood/creosote pile bulkhead and the existing footprint. All wood/creosote pile from the previous bulkhead will be disposed of in an approved upland site. Best Management Practices (BMP's) will include: use of barged in equipment and supplies instead of driving on the beach; deposition of a small amount of beach nourishment to replenish any disturbed tidelands; utilizing work windows to avoid unnecessary impacts to listed and sensitive species; use of existing rock and large woody debris materials to the most practical extent possible. Please see Appendix A of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and JARPA. 4.2 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit — Required Findings The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to provide greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the Shoreline Master Program in a manner which will be 7 consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW, particularly where denial of the application would thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act (FWRC 15.05.170). Conditional Use Permits can be approved when they are consistent with the following criteria: (a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the Shoreline Master Program. The City of Federal Way's revised Shoreline Master Program was updated and adopted in by the City Council by resolution on October 19, 2010. In order to more effectively implement the goals and policies of the master program and the SMA, the shorelines of the state within Federal Way were categorized into three separate environment designations (Urban, Rural, and Natural). FWRC 15.05.090 designates the ABRC as an Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. The Shoreline Master Program states that the purpose of the Urban Conservancy environment is "to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. Priority should be given to water -oriented uses over non -water oriented uses in the Urban Conservancy environment. Residential development and appurtenant structures should be accommodated in the Urban Conservancy environment when consistent with existing land use and zoning, and when consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses." Management Policy #1 from the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) states that residential, recreational, commercial, and public facility uses should be allowed, provided they preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, flood plain, bluffs, or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term. The request to construct approximately 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead will protect existing access to the shoreline. The existing stair access has been compromised by recent storm events and slumping of the slope. Goals and Policies in the SMP Shoreline Element applicable to this application are discussed below. 1. Shoreline Use Element S MPG 1: Shoreline areas shall permit a variety of development types in accordance with the FWRC, FWCP, and Shoreline Master Plan designations. Designs, densities, and locations for all allowed uses and developments should consider physical and natural features of the shoreline and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological function. Applicable Policies_ SMPP4 — Multiple uses of shoreline should be encouraged where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. SMPP5 — Shoreline ecological functions should be protected from uses or activities that will have an adverse effect on them. SMPP9 — Promote respect of private property rights while implementing SMA requirements. Discussion: The ABRC property has been in operation for 56 years serving a variety of community needs including a location for educational seminars, retreats, and housing for retired priests. The request to construct approximately 190 linear feet of rock bulkhead will protect the long established use of stairs accessing the beach for recreation, fishing, beach combing, meditation and prayer vigils. The activities on the property are all passive uses compatible with policies SMPP 4, 5, and 9 and are compatible with the surrounding low density land use activities. Failure to allow the replacement of the bulkhead could have significant ecological and environmental consequences as detailed in Chapter 5 of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment report prepared by Soundview Consultants which is part of this application. 2. Shoreline Use Element SMPG5: — Limit shoreline stabilization — which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action — including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulk heading, to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Apolicabie Policies: SMPP31— Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. SMPP32 —Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions, such as bioengineering or soft -shore armoring, would not be able to protect existing development. SMPP35 — Shoreline stabilization structures should allow passage of ground and surface waters into the main water body. Discussion: Failure to allow the shoreline stabilization actions proposed in this application would be contrary to SMPG5 and policies 31, 32, and 35 because existing structures are at risk. Specifically, the beach access stairs have already been damaged by natural processes of erosion and landslides and further destabilization can be anticipated as material at the toe of the slope continues to erode. There is currently no means of protecting the existing beach access stairs. Hard armoring with a rock bulkhead will provide the necessary structural protection required to maintain the stairs in a safe condition without creating any negative environmental or ecological consequences. E Pursuant to policy 32, upon approval, soft shore stabilization will be installed on approximately 220 linear feet of shoreline to protect the upland retreat structures and the fire lane that are at risk as erosion and bank destabilization continues overtime. As described in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, failure to stabilize the bank could cause the bank below the fire lane and retreat center to fail, thus adding additional debris on the shoreline. (b) The use will not interfere with normal use of public shorelines. Discussion: This proposal will not interfere with normal use of public shorelines. Quite the contrary is true. Stabilization of the steep slopes with a combination of hard armoring and soft shore stabilization will protect the existing stairs and the structures at the top of the slope. Replacement of the damaged stairs at the base of the slope will allow residents and guests to the ABRC safe access to the shoreline. (c) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area. Discussion. As discussed in detail under (a) above, the proposed project will cause no adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area. The mitigation measures that are part of this application and proposal are anticipated to create more beneficial shoreline habitat. These include removal of creosote pile bulkhead, dilapidated barge, creosote dolphins, embedded tires, and other debris followed by careful raking of the beach to restore disturbed areas. All of these actions are consistent with and implement the Restoration Opportunities specified in the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. (d) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Discussion. As discussed in (a) and (b) above, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. In fact the stabilization of the shoreline will protect or enhance both private property (stairways and upslope structures) and public resources (existing vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat) and result in the removal of foreign debris from the beach. (e) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. Discussion. The Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report discusses cumulative impact. If approved, approximately 27% of the shoreline will include rock bulkhead, whereas 10 approximately 31% of the shoreline of the subject property will be protected with soft armoring techniques. In the opinion of the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared by Soundview Consultants, (p.17), "should adjacent properties implement similar protections, the cumulative impacts along the shoreline are anticipated to be minor." 4.3 Consistency with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan -Required Findings In addition to the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program, the City's Comprehensive Plan has shoreline related goals and policies that provide a foundation and framework on which the shoreline master program is based. Components of the Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to this application include the plan's Shoreline Use, Conservation, and Recreation Elements as well as the Shoreline Protection goals and policies. These relevant goals and policies are discussed below. Shoreline Use Element LUG9: Preserve or develop shorelines, adjacent uplands, and adjacent water areas in a manner that assures a balance of shoreline uses with minimal adverse effect on the quality of life, water, and environment. Applicable Policies: LUP56 — Unique and fragile areas of the shoreline should be protected from uses or activities that will have an adverse effect on the land or water environment. Discussion: The stabilization project proposed in this application will have a positive impact on the shoreline by preventing further bank erosion while restoring access to the beach from the retreat center and protecting structures upslope. In addition, mitigation measures will be implemented that improve the quality of the shoreline environment by removing wood/creosote pilings, old tires, black plastic netting, and the framework of an old abandoned barge. Please see the discussion under the Conservation Element which follows. Conservation Element LUG If: Assure preservation of the unique and non -renewal natural resources and assure conservation of renewal natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations. Applicable Policies: LUP69 — Scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. In shoreline areas, the natural topography should not be substantially altered. Shoreline structures should be sited and designed to minimize view obstruction and should be visually compatible with the shoreline character. Wildlife and aquatic habitats, including spawning grounds, should be protected, improved, and, if appropriate, increased. LUP70- Shoreline activity and development should be planned, constructed, and operated to minimize adverse effects on the natural processes of the shoreline, and should maintain or enhance the quality of air, soil, and water on the shoreline. Any structure or activity in or near 11 the water should be constructed in such a way that it will minimize adverse physical or chemical effects on water quality, vegetation, fish, shelffish, or wildlife. Discussion- A variety of measures consistent with LUP 69 and 70 will be under taken to protect wildlife and aquatic habitats, minimize adverse impacts on natural processes of the shoreline and maintain the quality of air, soil, and water on the shoreline. These include: a. The natural topography of the shoreline will not be altered. b. There will be no in -water work. c. All stabilization work will be conducted landward of the existing bulkhead and constructed only as high as necessary to prevent further bank erosion. d. The bulkhead will not obstruct any views. e. Construction activities will occur during the July 2 to March 2 time frame for the protection of potentially present fish species. f. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which incorporates Best Management Practices will be implemented. g. Mitigation for the temporary impacts caused by the construction activities will involve the removal of (wood/creosote bulkhead, tires, plastic netting and an old barge frame). This will open up more intertidal habitat and restore some of the natural sediment habitat. h. Barged equipment will be used to avoid driving on the beach. i. Any disturbed tidelands will be replenished. j. Existing rock and large woody debris will be used as much as possible. Recreation Element: LUG12 —Provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented recreation opportunities that are diverse, convenient, and adequate for the regional population consistent with the carrying capacity of the land and water resources. ADDlicable Policies: LUP75- A balanced variety of recreation opportunities should be provided for people of different ages, health, family status, and financial ability. Shoreline recreation areas should provide opportunities for different use intensities ranging from low (solitude) to high (many people). Opportunities for shoreline recreational experiences should include developing access that accommodates a range of differences in people's physical mobility, capabilities, and skill levels. Discussion: Guests to the ABRC use the beach for walking, viewing, meditation, and prayer gatherings. Stabilization of the shoreline and replacement of the beach access stairs will once again allow residents and guests of the ABRC safe access to the shoreline as well as protect the structures at the top of the slope. Providing safe access to the beach via the stairs is a low intensity use that does not compromise the carrying capacity of the land and has no impact on the adjacent water resources. Comprehensive Plan Shoreline Protection: Shoreline protection is action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave actions. This action includes all structural and nonstructural means to reduce these impacts due to flooding, erosion, and 12 accretion. Speck structural and nonstructural means included in -this use activity are bulkheads, rip -rap, bank stabilization, and other means of shoreline protection. Aw able Policies: LUP128- Structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to reduce the damage. LUP139- Multiple uses of shoreline protection structures or nonstructural solutions should be encouraged. Discussion: The current bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the recently delineated ordinary high water elevation and is no longer acting as a functional bulkhead. According to the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, several of the individual piles have fallen or are moving apart from each other and high tidal and wave action is evident behind the bulkhead, allowing slumping of the upland at the toe of the slope and subsequent failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The new rock bulkhead will be located landward of the existing bulkhead and will be just large enough to protect the beach access stairs and structures and access road located upslope. The shoreline will be protected using a combination of hard armoring and soft shore stabilization techniques. This structural solution is necessary to prevent continued erosion of the shoreline bank which has already damaged the lower portion of the beach access stairs. Without affirmative action to stop the erosion of the stairs and stabilize the slope, the retreat facilities at the top of the slope as well as the stairs will continue to be threatened. Approval of the requested permits will have the following benefits: • All stabilization features will be implemented landward of OHW. • The rock bulkhead is the minimum size needed to protect the stairway. The geotechnical data for the project indicates that littoral sediment transport will be maintained post -project. • The soft shore stabilization proposed for 220 linear feet of the shoreline is not anticipated to interfere with sediment transport along the beach in a way that affects neighboring properties. • No treated wood products will be used for the project. • Existing creosote piles will be removed. • No net loss of ecological function is anticipated; the long term impacts of the proposed project are not anticipated to negatively impact the habitat and/or functions found at the site. 4.4 Alternatives to the proposed project The Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report includes a discussion of alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization on the ABRC property. The following is a summary of the alternatives as they relate to LUP 128 and 139. 13 No Action Alternative. According to the report, if no action is taken to stabilize the shoreline bank, physical consequences to the local environment and operational consequences to the ABRC facilities are anticipated including: a. Further movement of the material at the toe of the slope under the stairway resulting. in further destabilization of the stairway and potential for future destabilization of the upland emergency access road and other structures upslope. Use of the stairs in their current unstable condition creates a hazard. The emergency access road is approximately 15 feet, horizontally, from the top of the slope and retreat center building is approximately 75 feet, horizontally, behind the access road. The use of these structures if adjacent slopes were destabilized may create hazardous conditions. b. Environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative include the introduction of additional pollutants and debris to the beach with the eventual addition of the failed structures onto the beach as debris. The beach at the site currently has creosote pile and bulkhead, old tires, black plastic netting and the framework of an abandoned barge. The existing stairway is made of wood, metal posts and supports with the metal becoming pollutant if deposited into the water. Full Hard Armoring Alternative. Hard armoring the entire property would consist of constructing 720 linear feet of rock bulkhead. Details of the numerous physical and environmental consequences to hard armoring are discussed in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report. Some of the consequences include: a. Cutting off sediment supply from behind the bulkhead to the beach. b. Changing the direction of wave energy which could result in scouring of the beach thus narrowing the high tide beach, eroding fine sediments and coarsening the beach sediment. Coarsening of the sediments reduces potential forage fish spawning area and less prey for juvenile fish is available. c. Diminishing the available low hanging vegetation for shading of the upper beach or bank, leading to loss of cover and/or potential food source for salmon and other marine species utilizing the nearshore habitat. (Soundview, 2012). Full Soft Shore Stabilization Alternative. This alternative would consist of installing soft shore stabilization methods for the entire 720 linear feet of shoreline. Consequences of soft shore techniques for the entire shoreline include: a. The stability of sediments under the stairway may be compromised. b. Over several years the full soft shore stabilization alternative is likely to result in structural failure at the base of the stairway which may compromise the structural integrity of the stairway further up the slope. c. Safe beach access in the long run would not be provided. 14 Mixed Armoring Alternative Preferred. This alternative proposes hard armoring of 190 feet of shoreline using a rock wall for stabilization at the stairway and to the west. The project revisions incorporate further impact minimization measures to meet the project goals with significant reductions in the length of rockwall and soft armoring treatments proposed. These measures were designed after consultation with DOE and City staff as well as additional geotechnical analysis as prescribed by GeoResources as follows: Based on our observations, subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering analysis, we recommend 190 feet of new hard armor (rock bulkhead) extend east from the west property line. This distance will be adequate to protect the existing stairs. Continuing east from the hard armoring, we recommend that a new soft shore stabilization system approximately 220 feet in length be installed to mitigate wave and tidal erosion below the portion of the bluff down slope of the fire lane, where several area of active shoreline erosion and bluff regression were observed. The revised proposal requests 220 feet of linear soft shore stabilization techniques. The consequences of this alternative include: a. No net loss of ecological functions are anticipated. b. Hard armoring the westerly 190 feet will protect the integrity of the stairway from the natural erosive forces. c. The 220 feet of soft shore stabilization will be directionally positioned. When conditions are warranted in the future, it can be repositioned more easily than the rock bulkhead. All alternatives, excluding the no action alternative, would implement a mitigation plan that includes removal of beach debris including a tire bulkhead, dispersed tires, creosote piles, the frame of a disintegrated barge and any other non -natural debris. Mitigation will open up more intertidal habitat and restore some of the natural sediment transport. As previously stated, this is consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Opportunities identified in the Federal Way SMP. 4.5 Com liance with FWRC 15.05.040[5} and 15.05.050. Public Access FWRC 15.05.050(7) requires all shoreline permits to consider public access when: (i) The development would generate demand for one or more forms of public shoreline access; and/or (ii) The development would eliminate, restrict, or otherwise impair existing legal access opportunities or rights. Discussion: Public access to the shoreline is available at Dumas Bay State Park just east of the ABRC property. The ABRC is private property, and has been used as a private retreat center since 1956. The construction of new rock bulkhead and soft shore stabilization along the property's shoreline will not generate demand for any public access. No access to the general I 15 public has ever existed on this property. Consequently, the proposed shoreline stabilization will not eliminate, restrict, or impair any existing legal public access opportunities or rights. The property is gated in order to provide an environment of peace, tranquility, and nature for guests of the retreat. Additionally, this is a large site of approximately 36 acres. As such, there is concern about providing security for guests of the retreat, residents, and staff. Providing public access opportunities for the general public who are not guests of the retreat would be contrary to the purpose of the ABRC. For the reasons stated above, this application should be exempt from providing access for the general public. Shoreline Modification A detailed analysis of how the project complies with other requirements of FWRC 15.05.050 Shoreline Modifications is summarized below from the GeoResources Report (2013). Compliance with FWRC 15.05.040(5) Critical salmonid habitats is contained in the Fish & Wildlife Assessment Report. (GeoResources, 2013) As outlined in this report, it is our professional opinion that the shoreline below the stairs is actively being eroded as a result of wave and tidal energy, which is why shoreline modifications including soft and hard armoring is being recommended. (i) Based on a review of available shoreline photographs and observations since our initial site visit, we estimate the rate of erosion for the shoreline to be on the order of 1 to 2 inches per year. However, the actual erosion is likely manifested in more substantial failures of 1 to 3 feet every 10 to 15 years. (ii) The amended proposal to protect the shoreline below the retreat center is to use a combination of 190-feet of hard armoring and 220-feet of soft - shore stabilization. We are proposing the use of soft -shore stabilization measures where feasible, but the amount of active erosion ongoing immediately below the stairway requires the use of hard -armor to adequately protect the structure. (iii) The hard armoring will be constructed immediately below the existing stairway. Portions of the stairway are undermined, and other portions are in imminent threat of failure (failure within 3 years). Both the City and DOE agree that the stairs are in imminent threat of failure. (iv) The section of hard armoring is proposed to be at and above the ordinary high-water mark. As discussed with both the DOE and City personnel, it is common practice of the construction of rock bulkhead to be shown at or above ordinary high water, but to possible encroach below the OHW line as a result of construction practices. (v) As shown on Figure 2 and the attached site photographs, the active and ongoing toe erosion and bluff regression below the stairs is extending from off -site to the west approximately 100 feet to the east (just east of the old timber bulkhead). A 30-foot section of shoreline below the stair landing is currently protected with an old rubber -tire bulkhead. We recommend removing this 30-foot section and replacing with a new rock bulkhead. The presence of the rubber tire bulkhead has prevented erosion 16 along this section of the shoreline. Because of damage to the stairs as a result of the toe erosion, the repaired stair alignment wail extend further to the east, across another 60-foot section of active shoreline erosion. The sum of the three areas total 190 feet of proposed new bulkhead. In our opinion, and as shown by the amount of damage/erosion since the 2011/2012 winter storms, the 190-feet is the minimum necessary hard armor bulkhead required to protect the stairs. We also recommend that 220-feet of soft -shore stabilization be installed extending to the east. The soft shore stabilization will mitigate/reduce the ongoing toe erosion and protect the slope below the fire lane between the retreat center and the shoreline bluff. The 190-feet of hard armoring and 220-feet of soft -shore stabilization are a significant reduction from the originally proposed 380 feet of hard armoring and 340 feet of soft -shore stabilization. (vi) The proposed hard armoring and soft -shore stabilization will have minimal impact on the current sediment transport. As identified by the Coastal Zone Atlas, the site is located in of a divergent drift zone. Sediment that enters the shoreline environment as a result of sloughing and erosion will continue to do so on the west and east side of the modified shorelines. Also, the soft -shore stabilization will not completely stop the toe erosion, so sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment over the soft shore stabilization. (vii) The proposed hard armor bulkhead will extend to the west property line. The new bulkhead will be angled into the adjacent bluff to prevent scour and additional erosion on the adjacent parcel. To the east, the hard armor bulkhead will transition to the soft -shore stabilization and then transition to un-modified shoreline on the retreat center property. These two transition points will not result in additional or excessive erosion. (viii) No seeps or spring were noted on the slope above the proposed hard armor or soft -shore stabilization. Both the hard armor and soft -shore stabilization are designed so that they do not hold or retain water. Seepage and sheet flow is able to flow through the rock of the hard armor and over the woody/vegetation of the soft -shore stabilization. Therefore, there will be no impact to the normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the water body. As shown on the standard rock bulkhead detail (Figure 8), a filter fabric will be placed between the native sand and chinking material behind the large rock. (ix) No new land will be created by the construction of the hard armor bulkhead or soft shore stabilization. (x) No chemically treated wood will be used. The proposal includes the removal of the old timber pile bulkhead and two 3-pile dolphins which constructed with creosote wood timbers. (xi) To repeat the answer to item (x), no chemically treated wood will be used and existing creosote timber piles will be removed as part of the project. (xii) No vegetation will be disturbed as part of the construction of the bulkhead. However, repair and replacement of the stairs may result in loss of vegetation. All removed vegetation will be replaced with similar native vegetation. (xiii) In our opinion, as proposed, the project will not have an adverse effect on the existing ecological environment. The project will actually improve the local beach environmental by removing the old creosote timber piles, rubber tire bulkhead, and other debris on the beach. 17 5. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR SOFT SHORE STABILIZATION AND STAIR REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 5.1 Proie_ct Description Soft shore stabilization and the stair repair and replacement require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Soft shore stabilization Soft shore bank stabilization is proposed for approximately 220 feet of the shoreline to contribute to the protection of the upland retreat structures and fire lane. "From the east end of the proposed hard armor (rock bulkhead), we recommend that a new soft shore stabilization system approximately 220 feet in length be installed to mitigate wave and tidal erosion for this more vegetated and stable portion of the shoreline bluff at the site. The soft shore stabilization will not completely stop the toe erosion like the recommended hard armor bulkhead to the west, but will greatly reduce the rate of toe erosion across the portion of the bluff below the fire lane." (GeoResources 2013). The section of soft shore stabilization would be from approximately 190 to 410 feet east of the west property line. The soft shore stabilization material would consist of large woody debris and boulders as anchoring structures. Please see attached Geotechnical Report and project detail. In the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment, soft shore stabilization is permitted subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Stair repair and reolacernent The stairs provide beach access from the ABRC facilities located at the top of the steep slope. The existing stairs are approximately 340 feet in length. The lower portion of the stairs between elevation 13.8 and 58 feet were damaged by a land slide and slope failure causing an unsafe condition. The stairs are considered a permitted accessory use. Currently there is an existing meandering stair system that connects the fire lane on the north side of the retreat center down to the beach. The top portion of the stairs is a series of railroad ties and landscape timbers backfilled with earth and gravel. These stairs then transition to an existing stair system constructed of 2" aluminum pipe, hammer driven into the earth, with pressure treated wood treads. This lowermost portion of the aluminum pipe stair system has failed and broken apart as a result of a surface slide and settlement of the hillside. The plan is to utilize the existing wood landing located at elevation 58'-0" above MLLW (mean lower low water) and reconstruct a new stair system of similar or complementary materials as the existing stairs. The new stairs will be moved to the east approximately 45' at its greatest offset to avoid having to place the new aluminum piles on the area that has already slid and settled. The stairs will terminate at the 18 beach at the same location as the original stairs, elevation 13' 8" above MLLW, behind the proposed rock bulkhead. The proposed stair repair and replacement will be comparable to the existing stairs and will be in compliance with the City's Building Code. The stairs will be the same width as the existing stairs, made of similar or complementary materials, and traverse the slope in a manner similar to the existing stairs. They will terminate at the location of the existing landing. Please see site plan as part of this application. The repair of the stairs will not have any adverse impact on the shoreline environment. The proposed stairs will not intrude into the shoreline any further than the existing stairs and landing. 5.2 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Required Find in s In accordance with FWRC Chapter 15.05.150(3), a substantial development permit may be granted when the proposal is consistent with the following: (a) Goals, objectives, policies, and use regulations of the Federal Way shoreline Discussion: A detailed analysis of the goals and policies and use regulations of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program was discussed under the required findings for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project supports the goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the City's Shoreline Master Program. (b) Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and City Code; Discussion: A detailed analysis of the project's compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and applicable sections of the City Code was discussed under the required findings for a shoreline conditional use permit. The project is in full compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and City Code. (c) The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act WAC 173-27-150. A shoreline substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: (a) The policies and procedures of the act; (b) The provisions of this regulation; and (c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Discussion: An analysis of consistency with the above is contained under findings for a Conditional Use permit. Please see Section 4, pages 7-17 of this report. 19 6. SHORELINE VARIANCE PERMIT. FOR HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF ROCK BULKHEAD 6.1 Pro'ect Description In accordance with FWRC 15.05.050(1)(b)(i), the maximum height of a proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is to be no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters. We are proposing a rock bulkhead at OHW elevation (average of 12.4 feet) to extend four feet vertically up to a tidal elevation of 16.4 feet, which is 3 feet 6 inches higher than FWRC allows. The MHHW elevation is 11.8 feet. In addition to a Shoreline Variance for the height of the rock bulkhead, we are also requesting a location Variance for the potential location of the rock bulkhead. FWRC 15.05.050(1)(a)(iv) states that in the case of bulkheads, the location shall be landward of the OHWM. As stated in the revised Geotechnical Report, the bulkhead is proposed to be at and above the ordinary high water mark. As discussed with both the DOE and City personnel, it is common practice for the construction of rock bulkheads to be shown at or above ordinary high water; however to possibly encroach below the OHW mark as a result of construction practices. According to Schembs, the exact location cannot be determined until the bulkhead is actually being constructed as the location will be dependent on width of rock and construction techniques. Consequently, the City is requiring that a location variance for the bulkhead be identified as a variance from the SMP standards. 6.2 Shoreline Variance — Required Findings FWRC 15.05.160(3) states that a variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply: (a) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; Discussion: The property's entire shoreline is subject to erosion (GeoResources, 2013) and needs some sort of stabilization for protection of the stairs and existing structures upslope. The use of the property is currently disrupted by the hazardous condition of the stairway and upslope structures are in danger of destabilization within the near term (GeoResources, 2013). The existing creosote pile bulkhead which was constructed at a lower elevation than 14.8, has failed and signs of erosion are from waterward, rather than from landward erosion. If the proposed rock bulkhead is constructed no higher than 12.8 feet in elevation (which is the Code requirement) it would allow wave action to top the bulkhead and further erode the toe of the 20 slope behind the bulkhead. The additional height (3 feet 6 inches over the code requirement) will protect the landward side of the bulkhead from wave and tidal actions. (Soundview, 2013). Regarding the location variance, as discussed above, strict adherence to the requirement that the bulkhead be constructed landward of the ordinary high water mark is unreasonable. since exact location depends on several variables such as construction techniques and width of rock as an example. There is potential for some construction below the ordinary high water mark. (b) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restriction or applicant's own actions; Discussion: The hardship requiring the construction of the bulkhead higher than allowed by the FWRC is due to wave action and not the result of any action by the landowner. The failure of the existing creosote pile bulkhead at the elevation near the MHHW demonstrates the need to move the bulkhead to a higher elevation in order to prevent wave and tidal action from breaching the bulkhead further undermining the toe of the slope. The potential hardship requiring construction of the bulkhead above OHWM is that until construction is actually occurring, topography and size of rock, as well as construction techniques will dictate what portions, if any, of the bulkhead will be constructed below OHWM. (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Discussion: The rock bulkhead is permitted with the approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit in the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. The design of the bulkhead will be compatible with the shoreline environment and water enjoyment uses in the area. See the geotechnical report and bulkhead design prepared by GeoResources. The GeoResources Report, 2013 has determined that the bulkhead height as proposed will be adequate to provide protection against overtopping and future erosion. Further, the rock bulkhead has been sized to protect the stairs which have been demonstrated to be in imminent danger of failure within 3 years. The potential construction of portions of the rock bulkhead below OHWM will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. Best management practices will occur during construction. 21 (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; Discussion: The rock wall is proposed for the minimum size needed to protect the stairway (Soundview, 2013), (GeoResources, 2013). Other property owners would be allowed to pursue a Shoreline Variance if they could show that wave and tidal action was breaching an existing bulkhead and causing erosion and slope failure at the shoreline. The construction of any portion of the rock bulkhead slightly below OHWM will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Discussion. For both the height and location variance, the approval of this application will have a positive, not detrimental, effect on the public interest. Specifically, it will protect the shoreline from wave and tidal action that is currently undermining the toe of the slope. Continued failure of the slope will introduce sediment, pollutants and debris onto the shoreline and eventually cause the stairs at the lower elevation to fail and slide to the shoreline as additional debris. If the shoreline is protected from further erosion, public resources such as the shoreline, Puget Sound, and adjacent fish and wildlife habitat will as a consequence be protected. The public interest will be further enhanced because additional mitigation measures will implement the Federal Way Shoreline Management Plan Restoration Opportunities by providing for removal of an existing creosote pile bulkhead, removal of a decaying barge, creosote dolphins, embedded tires and other debris. (Soundview, 2013). (f) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and Discussion: The proposal is mostly landward of the ordinary high water mark. There are no wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps in the project area. No in water construction of the bulkhead will occur. There is a possibility of slight encroachment below the OHWM as a result of construction practices. 22 (g) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline. Discussion: Cumulative Effects have been addressed in the Soundview Report (Chapter 5.3). For both the height and location variance request, no net loss of ecological function is anticipated and no new lands will be created. The alternatives analysis in Chapter 5.1 of the Soundview Report provides anticipated project impacts, and in conjunction with mitigation measures, the long term impacts of the proposed project will not negatively impact the habitat and/or functions found at the site. (Soundview, 2013). The project proposed includes armoring 27% of the shoreline at the CHW of the subject property. Approximately 31% of the shoreline bank is proposed to be protected through modem soft -armoring techniques, allowing movement of beach sediments with buffering effects provided by the large woody debris. In addition, the proposed cleanup and beach restoration actions will provide an improvement in water quality by removing approximately 463 cubic feet of creosote -treated wood material and trash as well as open approximately 3,520 square feet of intertidal habitat otherwise obscured by existing structures and debris. According to the report, adjacent property to the west lacks the need for upland protections similar to the proposed project. The property to the east is located within the divergence zone. Consequently, if receiving similar protections of approximately 27% hard armoring along the shoreline, the effects are anticipated to be minor. (Soundview, 2013). 7. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons stated above, the proposal to construct a 190 linear foot rock bulkhead at a height of 3 feet 6 inches over the height allowed by code, 220 feet of soft shore stabilization, and repair and replacement of a portion of the existing beach access stairs is consistent with criteria for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. As such we request approval of the proposal. 23 8. QUALIFICATIONS FOR YEAGER ASSOCIATES Personnel Dale Yeager Principal/Land Use & Environmental Planner Professional Experience: 26 years Dale Yeager is Principal and founder of Yeager Associates, Land Use & Planning. The firm was established in 2008. Ms. Yeager has 26 years of Public Sector and Private Sector experience as a land use planner, with 22 years of planning experience in Washington. Her public sector experience includes City of Tacoma (SEPA officer), Pierce County (Resource Management), City of University Place, (Current Planner) Thurston Regional Planning Council (Comprehensive Planning), Cowlitz County (Comprehensive Planning), U.S. Forest Service in Colorado (Geologist), and City of Boulder, Colorado (SEPA). She served as a Senior Project Planner at a local engineering firm in Tacoma prior to starting her own company. Ms. Yeager has extensive experience in all aspects of shoreline permitting, (Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, Shoreline Variances, Shoreline Exemptions), project management, master planned communities, policy planning, site planning and design, SEPA, land use variances, rezones, and conditional use permits, public hearings, public meetings, and working with neighborhood groups. Education • B.S., Geology — Baldwin -Wallace College, Berea, Ohio • M.A., Urban Studies and Natural Resource Planning — University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado • M.A., Piano Performance —Washington State University, Pullman, WA Professional Memberships/Organizations • Member Master Builders Association (MBA) of Pierce County • MBA Legislative Committee Member • Chair, Citizen Advisory Committee, University Place Shoreline Master Program update • Board of Directors Dance Theatre Northwest, educational non-profit 501c3 • Board of Directors, McCormick Woods Golf Course, Port Orchard Past Memberships ■ Board of Directors, MBA of Pierce County • Land Use Advisor, Central Neighborhood Council, Hilltop area, Tacoma • Land Use Director, non-profit Hilltop Action Coalition • APA, American Planning Association, Planning and Law Division • Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for WRIA's 10 and 12 for salmon recovery; Pierce County lead entity • Capital Strategies Task Force, University Place • Past Vice Chair, University Place Parks Commission • Board of Directors, Pierce County/Tacoma Chamber of Commerce 24 HABITAT MITIGATION AND PROTECTION PLAN ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER (ABRC) SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ACCESS REPAIRS MARCH 2O14 I& �oun vtsu* 6nnsultant RESUBMITTED MAR 14 2014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS HABITAT MITIGATION AND PROTECTION PLAN ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER (ABRC) SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ACCESS REPAIRS MARCH 14, 2014 PROJECT LOCATION 4700 DASH POINT ROAD FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 (CITY OF FEDERAL WAY) PREPARED FOR CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEKrTLI3 710 9"H AvENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 y, PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSCL 7FANTSSL� 2907 H,4RBORVIEW DIM-[-'. GIG I-LUZBOR, WASHINGTON' 98-:i:55'._ (253) 514-8952 "'INK �L?fll2L�C'L�i�iT ��C7iZSU.��Q1t��.1. Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC has been hired by Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS) Property and Construction representative, Ed Foster (Applicant) to provide environmental assessment and support for repair of an existing beach access stairway and shoreline bank stabilization on an approximately 36-acre property consisting of two tax parcels located at 4700 Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington (King County Parcel Numbers 112103-9010 and 112103-9029). The bluff overlooking Dumas Bay is considered a geologically hazardous area due to steep slopes and landslide and erosion potential, and the project is necessary to maintain existing water -enjoyment use of the site as a retreat center. Ed Foster (Applicant) of CCAS Property Construction is the owner's representative and project applicant. The subject property is located along the southeast side of Puget Sound, Dumas Bay, within the'C:ity of Federal Way, and is situated in the Northwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. The ordinary high water (OHW) limit of the shoreline. was delineated, and the property nearest the proposed work area was investigated for the presence of fish and wildlife habitat and priority species in the spring of 2012. The investigation identified no regulated habitat other than the Puget Sound abutting the north boundary of the proposed project. Development actions within the Puget Sound are likely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (LSACE), Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and City of Federal Way. Shoreline development actions landward of the OHW are regulated. by the WSDOE and the City of Federal Way. The regulatory limit for L SACE jurisdiction is likely MHHW for actions regulated under Clean Water Act, Section 404, and Ml IW for actions regulated under Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10. The bulkhead and lower portions of. the stairs would be located in the 100- year flood plain, or those areas with 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year. Therefore, any development actions within this buffer also require compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) through FEMA, A subsequent site investigation by WDFW in the fall of 2013 identified surf smelt spawning habimt in the vicinity of the project, and the proposed dimensions of the bank stabilization were reduced at the request of WDFW and WSDOE. The project, as currently proposed, is not anticipated to adversely affect ESA -listed species or floodplain functions; however, the City of federal Wad* requires assessment and documentation of the potential effects on ESA - listed species and riparian buffer habitat to retain FEMA compliance. The proposed project is now limited to reconstructing the beach access stairway and existing 45-foot long dilapidated shoreline bank stabilization adjacent to the stairway with extensions of soft armoring for approximately twenty-five feet on each side of the bulkhead. Additional actions include beach cleanup ,and some upland enhancement plantings as mitigation for the project. A prior alternatives analysis provided the rationale for the proposed project as the best fit to meet the purpose and needs of the project, while protecting available habitat and environmental functions to the maximum extent possible (Soundview, 2012); however, the project was further reduced in scope and extent following City of Federal Way comments. Between reductions for the City of Federal Way and further reductions for WDFW and WSDOE, the overall project will now only provide 90 feet of bank protection. Beyond mitigation actions for the project, no work below MHHW is proposed at this time; therefore, Federal jurisdiction over the project is likely limited to shoreline clean up and restoration actions. 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report i March 14, 2014 The shoreline, waterward from the toe -of -slope consists of sand, pebble and cobble sediments. Anthropogenic debris embedded on the beach include old creosote pile and dolphins, a tire bulkhead for the stairway landing, numerous scattered tires, and a dilapidated barge. Above OHW, there is high vegetated bank, unstable in portions with clear signs of recent slide activity. Seven buildings, including one large building complex near the shoreline, associated parking areas, fire lanes, and driveways currently exist onsite. The vegetated bank and upland areas primarily contain native mixed forested species, with some landscaping surrounding the retreat center buildings. No changes are proposed to upland developed areas beyond the stairway repair in a safe location using the minimum disturbance of the vegetated bank to implement the project. Puget Sound is known to contain several protected habitats and species. No direct impacts to these species are proposed. However, protection of the upland structures is necessary and is proposed at OHW and above where possible and temporary disturbance of the upper intertidal habitat is necessary for mitigation actions. Indirect effects may include reduced shoreline beach nourishment, but these potential effects are minimized by the severely reduced extent of the proposed actions. The proposed reconstruction and stabilization project will also include best management practices in order to minimize potential for indirect impacts to the protected habitats and species within the Puget Sound waters. A summary of the findings is provided below. Species Name Common Name Federal Listing Status Determination of Effect Bracbyramphur marmoratus Marbled Muttelet Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Oncorhymbus mykiss Steelhead trout Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Oncorbyncus tshanyt ba Chinook salmon Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Ordnus area Southern Resident killer whale Endangered No Effect Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Sebastes pawl phis Bocaccio Rockfish Endangered No Effect Sebastes pitrxi,ger Canary Rockfish Threatened No Effect Sebastes ?u6rnrmus Yelloweye Rockfish Threatened No Effect 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report li March 14, 2014 Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter2. Proposed Project........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Location................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Project Area and Description.................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Action Area............................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 3. Habitat Assessment Methods......................................................................................... 6 Chapter4. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Setting and Topography............................................................. ............................ 7 4.2 Soils/Geology........................................................................................................................ 8 4.3 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................. 8 4.4 Puget Sound......................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas........a................................................ 9 4.6 Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Buffers......................................................................... 10 4.7 FEMA Mapped Flood Area ............................................... u....................................0 ........... 10 Chapter 5. Species Information..................................................................................................... 11 Chapter6. Project Effects on ESA -Listed Species......................................................................... 13 6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................... 13 6.2 Short -Term Effects.............................................................................................................. 13 6.3 Long -Term Effects............................................................................;�.................................. 13 6.4 Determinations of Effect...................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 7. Mitigation and Monitoring........................................................................................... 18 7.1 Proposed Mitigation .............................................................................I................... 18 7.2 Anticipated Beiletirs ................................................................................................... 19 Chapter8. References ......................................................................................................... 22 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map................................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Terrestrial project noise attenuation to ambient levels .............. 5 Figure 3. Aerial Photo of the Project Area Location....................................................................8 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 111 March 14, 2014 Tables Table 1. Terrestrial noise attenuation calculations........................................................................5 Table2. Shoreline Information Summary....................................................................................9 Table 3. ESA -Listed Species Potentially Found in King County................................................11 Table4. Species Determination Summary.................................................................................14 Table 5. Debris and structures to be removed...........................................................................19 Appendix A — Methods and Tools Appendix B — Project Detail Sheet Appendix C — Qualifications Appendices z =�k 6:1 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report iv March 14, 2014 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC has been hired by the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS) Property and Construction representative, Ed Foster (Applicant) to provide environmental assessment and reporting for a proposed reconstruction of beach access and shoreline stabilization project on an approximately 36-acre property consisting of two tax parcels located at 4700 Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington (King County Parcel Numbers 112103- 9010 and 112103-9029). Both parcels are owned by CCAS and Ed Foster is the owner's agent/representative. Ed Foster's phone number is 206-730-7206. The subject property is located along the southeast side of the Puget Sound within the City of Federal.Way. The subject property is situated in most of Northwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 21 North, Awe 3 East, W.M. The subject property contains the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC.) used for education, training, and group events as well as residences for retired priests with beach access located in the northern portion of the property on a high bank Nvith steep slopes. ABRC consists of one main building complex located just landward of a concrete emergency*.access road located approximately 15 feet from the top of shoreline bluff at the closest point.. Thetgh access stairway extends from a northwest portion of the emergency access road in a zigzag p.. ern o the beach. In addition, the subject property contains three residential structures located in the southern portion of the subject property with associated parking area and access driveway running the length of the center of the subject property. The remainder of the property is comprised of mixed forested areas with mostly native plant species. The northernmost site boundary abuts the Puget Sound shoreline and the proposed project area, within the 200 foot shoreline setback. Failure of a small creosote treated timber pile bulkhead and recent.slide activity has destabilized the beach access stairway from the 58- foot elevation on the bank to the beach. The stairway landing is located behind the dilapidated creosote pile bulkhead and embedded Lire landing on the beach. The current bulkhead is located at a lower elevation thati the recently delineated ordinary high water (OHW) elevation and is no longer acting as a cohesive bulkhead, and several of the individual pile have fallen or are moving apart from each other and ldgh tidal and wave action. is evident behind the bulkhead, allowing slumping of the upland at the toeof the slope and subsequent failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The beach contains some embedded debris including tires, creosote piles, dolphins and the remnants of a grounded barge. The project will comply with allportions of FWMC Title 15.05.050(5)(b). An alternatives analysis is provided in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report by Soundview Consultants (Soundview, 2013). The project is designed to minimize its impact on the environment; unavoidable impacts will be mitigated via rehabilitation of degraded beach areas by cleaning up debris and pulling creosote piles and dolphins waterward of the project area; the project satisfies FWMC 15.05.050, shoreline modifications. The limited hard armoring and soft armoring efforts are proposed to protect existing development. The proposed shoreline stabilization is located at or landward of OHW and is smaller than the recommended minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements (Schembs, 2013). Sediment transport impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible; the shoreline stabilization is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the property of others and/or create the need for adjacent stabilization measures. The project proposes reconstruction of the beach access stairway and stabilization of the steep eroding bank in preparation for continued use as a retreat center with shoreline access. This project is proposed within the 200-foot shoreline management zone but does not propose any in -water work at or below 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 1 March 14, 2014 mean higher high water (N H beyond beach cleanup and mitigation actions. In addition, work will occur with the 100-year floodplain, but adverse impacts are not anticipated for ESA -listed species in the area. The purpose of this fish and wildlife habitat mitigation and monitoring plan and FEMA compliance document is to protect regulated fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on or near the proposed project in order to meet City of Federal Way requirements regarding assessment and documentation of the potential project effects on critical areas and protected species (I WC 15.05.140). This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding. • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated critical areas within the subject property; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species located within the riparian buffer zone; ■ Standard shoreline buffer/setback locations; • Proposed site plan map with detail drawings; • Construction best management practices and site management recommendations; • Analysis of project effects on ESA -listed species acid critical habitat, and Mitigation and monitoring plan. IF 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC March 14, 2014 Habitat Assessment Report 2 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Location The proposed project is located at 4700 Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington, and situated in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Parcel Numbers 112103-9010 and 112103-9029). To access the site from Interstate 5, northbound, take the 1-705 NMIA77 S exit (exit 133) towards the City Center/Pacific Avenue and proceed 1 mile, keep right at the fork for 0.5 mile following signs for Interstate 705N/City Center/Washington 7 S/ Pacific Avenue. Keep left at the fork, following signs for City Center and merge onto I-705 N follow for 0,7 mile. Take the WA-509 N exit toward Port of Tacoma and proceed 0.2 mile. Turn right onto South 21st Street/WA-509. Continue to follow WA-509 North for 12.1 miles. The site .is on the north side of Dash Point Road. Figure 1. Vicinity Map. . .- 1 Appmximak PR<)JFCT AREA /..... ftw err j ` Ir } rr ' r _ir 2.2 Project Area and Description Repair/replacement of the existing beach access stairway, associated bulkhead, and additional soft armoring bank stabilization is proposed along the shoreline of the subject property. Shoreline stabilization is proposed through a combination of approximately 45 linear feet of reconstructed rock wall plus 50 linear feet of soft stabilization located on the base OHW elevation of 12.4 feet, which is above MHHW (11.8 feet, MI —LW), in order to protect the beach access stairway. This rock retaining wall should be built to approximately four (4) feet tall at the base OHW elevation in order to be higher than maximum observed high tidal elevation of 14.60 feet (MI.LW) (USACE, 2012). The proposed soft armoring extensions consist of large woody debris and strategically placed boulders similar to natural debris already in the area. The project proposes to maintain the current water -enjoyment use (definition in FWMC 15.05.030) of the property. The project timing is proposed to occur within the required fish work window between July 2 and March 2 for protection 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 3 March 14, 2014 of potentially present sensitive salmonid and forage fish species. Mitigation actions proposed include those indicated for City of Federal Way Restoration Opportunities including removal of a dilapidated grounded barge, embedded tires, creosote piles and any other non -natural debris located on the tidelands, along with other negotiated actions including beach nourishment, replanting of disturbed areas, planting of evergreen tree species in the bank in targeted locations, and preserving any fallen trees on the shoreline in areas proposed for soft stabilization. In addition, the proposal includes backfilling behind the bulkhead to provide an upper bench for minor movement of sand over the top of the bulkhead. Project staging will involve the use of a construction barge arriving at high tide in order to bring a tracked machine and materials. The use of construction barge to access the project will be at high tide only in order to minimize grounding out on the beach. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures (TESC) measures will be installed along the bank prior to careful removal of stairway and other dilapidated features. A tracked excavator will clean the area of historic creosote pile bulkhead and the existing footprint. All creosote pile from the previous_,bulkhead will be disposed of in an approved upland site. The installation of the replacement portion of the access stairway will be performed concurrently and from existing upland impervious surfaces. Best Managemeet Practices (BMPs) will include: use of barged in equipmento-and supplies i stead of driving on the beach or slopes; deposition of a prescribed amount of beach nourishment material to replenish any disturbed tidelands (WDFW); utilizing work windows to avoid unnecessary impacts to listed and sensitive species; use of existing rock and large w�o ' y debris materials*ec racticable extent possible. In addition, no excavation of native deposits i pro ©sed. The prolan map and detailed drawings of the proposed project are included with � e for this project, with drawings revised on March 12, 2014. ! Mitigation will be completed concurrently with the installation project actions in order to minimize beach trips and associated impacts. 2.3 Action Area The "Action Area" encompasses;•the locations w ere project activities will occur (the Project Area) plus areas that may be directly orectly affected by the proposed project either through physical, chemical or biological mechanismsNe0geographic limits of the Action Area were defined by consider'. . the potential spati`'all extent�of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on listed species. The Action rea for the pro'j'ect includes those areas directly affected by the project actions including the shoreline approach and beach cleanup area, a small upland approach from the parking area, and an emergency access roadway along the top of slope to area of stairway work approximately mid -slope in the west. The use of pneumatic tools for installation of the stairway is anticipated to create ?terrestrial noise level of approximately 85dB (WSDOT BA Preparation Manual, 2011). Machinery conducting work on the beach may produce typical noise levels of 79 to 81 dBA (WSDOT, 2011). Background noise levels in Federal Way according to WSDOT (2010) is estimated to be 65dBA, corresponding to the noise level generated by a population density of greater than 30,000 people. Project noise will attenuate to ambient sound levels more quickly under the "soft site" conditions present on the vegetated shoreline slope, while project noise on the beach will attenuate to ambient sound levels at a slower rate under the "hard site" conditions of noise traveling over water, rather than through vegetation. Using the regression table below, the terrestrial noise action area for both upslope and shoreline actions is calculated to include terrestrial and overwater 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Sound6ew Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 4 March 14, 2014 areas out to a distance of approximately 316 linear feet from the action. No other reduction factors, such as the topography or vegetation of the site, were used to attenuate the noise over a shorter distance; however, it is likely that under real world conditions the noise will attenuate to background levels much more quickly than estimated. No in -water work is proposed and the project actions are anticipated to produce only localized and temporary beach disturbance during the actions. The total Action Area for the project; therefore, includes a narrow strip down the top of shoreline bank to the stairway area plus the project area on the beach and a terrestrial noise radii of approximately 316 feet suttounding the project area. A map of the Action Area is provided. Table 1. Terrestrial noise attenuation calculations. ,pm.. Impact Terrestrial Attenuation Table _ Distance from Construction Construction Ambient Source Noise through Noise over Sound Measured Noise Pressure Vegetation Water (Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (Micro -Pascals) (atm) 50 0.00947 85 81 65 355655.882 p 3.6034E-08 100 0.018939 77.5 75 65 149978.8419 1.5195E-08 200 0,037879 70 69 65 63245.5532 6.4079E-09 400 0.075758 62.5 63 65 26670.42864 2.7022E-09 800 0.151515 55 57 65 I 1.1246.8265 1.1395E-09 1600 0.30303 47.5 51 63 4742.747411 4.8052E-10 3200 0.606061 40 45 ° F 65 2000 2.0263E-10 6400 1.212121 32.5 39 65 g 843.3930069 8.545E-11 12800 2.424242 25 33 65 355.655882 3.6034E-11 25600 4.848485 17,5 27 65 149.9788419 1.5195E-11 ure 2. Terrestrial project noise attenuation to ambient levels. Terrestrial Attenuation 90 - -: - 80,��,- - - -.-- - - - - _ 70 - --=� - - ------ _ -- - - --. q 60 - - -- -_ - - -=-- . v 50 -- - -- --_ } _-8.6561n(x)+ 114,86 IC f 30 _ - - - -- F =-10.821n(x) + 127.33 20 - ,. - ---- - -Y-: 10 _- 50 500 Distance(ft) 5000 50000 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Habitat Assessment Report 5 ♦ Construction Noise through vegetation ■Ambient Noise :; Construction Noise over NVater Soundview Consultants LLC March 14, 2014 Chapter 3. Habitat Assessment Methods The fish and wildlife habitat assessment and documentation methods used to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations were provided in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report by Soundview Consultants (Soundview, 2013) and are detailed below. Please see Appendix A for further details of methods used in this report. The critical areas, including the critical salmonid habitat, and OHW were identified, delineated, and assessed by Racheal Villa, a Fisheries Biologist with Soundview Co wultants LLC, and Railin Peterson, an Environmental Scientist with Soundview Consultants I3.C, during site visits in March and May of 2012. The OHW delineation was conducted in accordance with guidance from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Olson and Stockdale_, 2008). Additional site visits for ongoing assessments, mitigation discussions, and data collection included a site visit with WDFW in October 2012; and with WSDOE and City of Federal Way in May of 2013; d th NOAA Federal and WDFW in October 2013. k A review of documents and data obtained from the National Wetland Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Priority Habitats and Species maps, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, federal Insurance Rate Map, FIRM Panel 1225 of 1725, City of Federal Way critical areas maps accessed via I{ing County iMap, and various photographs were evaluated for documented wildlife observations and/or the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat on car near the site prior to site investigations. In addition, high -resolution aerial photography of.the surrounding area was carefully examined. Visual observations using stationary and walkisag survey methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Site inspections of the shoreline were conducted at varying tidal elevations. Description of features identified on the shoreline ave:described in Chapter 4. OHW was marked with alpha-numericajly labeled blue surveyor's flagging secured to vegetation or lathe. The 01 W boundary and shoreline topography were surveyed by Triad Associates using typical land -surveying practices. Mears high water (MHW) at 10.8 feet and mean higher high water [MHHVG at 11.8 feet elevations (USAC:I , 2012 using MLLW reference) were determined using elevation data and mathematical extrapolation to determine the location of tidal elevations. The location of the OHW, MHW, NTHHW, and other shoreline features are found in Chapter 4 and shown on plait sheets in the project JARPA. City of Federal Way Revised Code research and analysis was conducted along with project analysis throughout the assessment period and development of all project documentation. In addition, ongoing regulatory coordination and consultation has resulted in recent documentation of surf smelt habitat. 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 6 March 14, 2014 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions ABRC contains two developed upland areas separated by a long north -south oriented driveway. The developed areas contain existing structures as described in Chapter 1. The beach access stairway, located in the northwestern portion of the property, has failed due to bulkhead failure and recent slide activity on the shoreline bank. The proximity of the main building complex and emergency access road to the top of bank on the shoreline with destabilized slopes creates a potential for hazardous conditions to upland structures, public, and personal safety. The high shoreline bank contains an overall slope greater than 90 percent. The project area is located along the northernmost property boundary and the Puget Sound shoreline. The stairway landing is located behind a failed creosote pile bulkhead and embedded tire landing. The existing bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the recently delineated OHW elevation and is no longer acting as a cohesive bulkhead. Rather, several of the individual pile have fallen or are moving apart from each other, and high tidal and wave action is evident behind the bulkhead in an area of slumping of the upland at the toe of the --slope causing failure of the lower portion of the stairway. Other than the Puget Sound shoreline and. the associated critical salmon habitat designated shoreline (Federal Way Revised Code (FW1�C) Title 15.05.040(5)), and steep slopes, no other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on -site or within 300 feet of the shoreline project area during the May 2012 site inspection. 4.1 Setting and Topography ABRC property is located within the 1B — Puget. Sound Dumas City of Federal Way planning area. The land designation is Suburban Estates (SE) 1DU/5 acres; Low Density Residential. The shoreline is designated as Urban Conservancy with specific management requirements for shorelines in Federal Way. ABRC: is located on approximately 36 acres over -looking Dumas Bay on Puget Sound. The property is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. In addition to the church and retreat center, there is an office, .shop/garage, a small house, and residences for retired priests. Property to the west is owned by the Boy Scouts of America and has one building. Properties to the southwest, south and east are developed with single family dwellings on lots generally 1-3 acres in size. The topography of the site is generally flat in the south with a gentle slope towards the east and north towards the shoreline of Gig Harbor Bay. The northern portion of the site includes a steep shoreline bluff with inclinations of greater than 60 percent with a total relief of 170 vertical feet (GeoResources, 2013). 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 7 March 14, 2014 -r.fr JVlla/ va. —Ej The beach contains sand, cobble substrate with an obs ed drift line of macroalgae (Ulva sp.) in the upper intertidal area, with embedded debris on the bei i including tires, old creosote piles, dolphins and the remnants of a grounded barge. The bluff .overlooking Dumas Bay is considered a geologically hazardous area due to steep slopes and landslide and erosion potential. Slope:'stability near the project area is identified as "unstable" with an area of "unstable recent landslide" identified within the project area (Ecology 2012). Recent and .ongoing slide activity on the eastern portions of the shoreline bank was observed to contain slumped areas with tall trees fallen onto the beach. 4.3 Vegetation Above OHW the shorYne nkcontains native species including Douglas fir, western hemlock, big leaf maple and red alder over beaked hazelnut, oceanspray, sword fern, fireweed, thimbleberry, salal, and assorted grasses. Invasive plant species include English ivy and some Himalayan blackberry. 4.4 Puget Sound The Puget Sound is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject property (Figure 3). The subject property contains natural vegetated shoreline with approximately 60 feet of creosote pile bulkhead, numerous embedded tires, relic creosote pile, and a dilapidated barge frame. Separating Soundview Consultants LLC 1113,0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center 8 March 14, 2014 Habitat Assessment Report the shoreline and upland areas is a high bank with steep eroding slope. The substrate on the beach adjacent to the site consists of sand, pebbles and cobble. Some clumps of macroalgae (Ulva sp.) were observed in the areas below the OHW elevation during the recent site inspections. The Puget Sound, adjacent to the proposed project site, is a designated critical salmon habitat (Federal Way Municipal Code 15.05.040). Protected fish and wildlife species have been identified within the Puget Sound by State and Federal agencies. Dalco Passage Poverty Bay waters were listed as Category 5 in 2008 303d assessment for PCB by tissue samples (Ecology, 2008), Littoral drift along the shoreline, according to Coastal Atlas mapping, (Ecology 2012) consists of a divergence zone along the project area shoreline with a small western portion beginning the drift cell that proceeds to the west. To the east of the project area is located another beginning of the divergent drift cell moving to the east. Table 1 provides a summary of the shoreline features at the site.,, 4.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The shoreline adjacent to the proposed project area.coutains Critical Salmon Habitat as classified in FWMC 15.05.040. Activities and development conducted in designated Critical Salmon Habitat are required to comply with development standards outlined in FVJ�IC 45 05.040. 5. Both Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the City of Federal Way list priority habitats data near the vicinity of the proposed project. Federally listed species found within the vicinity of the project are discussed in Chapter 5. Table 2. Shoreline Information Summary `*. REGULATED SHORELINE HABITAT INFORMATION SUMMARY Water Body Puget Sound 9 WRIA Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way Urban Conservancy ,Shoreline Designation 200-foot SMA setback Buffer/ Setback PHS Documented Estuarine Intertidal Habitat Habitat Location of Shoreline The marine shoreline is located along the north edge Relative to Project of the project area. The shoreline is mostly natural with some tire and creosote pile debris and Buffer Condition a tire bulkhead at stair landing along OHW. Above OHW is a high vegetated bank with >90 percent overall slope. Beach access stairwell stretches from the toe of slope to top -of slope. Protected Species Present in Project Vicinity See Chapter 5 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 9 March 14, 2014 4.6 Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Buffers Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with development standards outlined in FWMC 15.05.040. 5. Critical salmon habitat regulatory compliance is discussed in Chapter 5.2. Shoreline jurisdiction includes shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030. Shorelands are "those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions from Ordinary High Water." FWMC does not contain any other language relating to saltwater buffers. As such, the property is not subject to a specific buffer size but actions within the 200-feet measured horizontally from the OHW of the shoreline are regulated under FWMC 15.05.040. 4.7 FEMA Mapped Flood Area Federal Emergency Management Agency TEMA) maps accessed through the FEMA website indicate the bulkhead would be located in the 100-year flood plain, or those areas with 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year. It is likely that lower portions of the stairwell will be in 100- year flood area. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Aria, (SFHA) d to identifies 8.5 feet (2NGVD 29) (approximately 14.8 feet, MLLW) as the area with a one (1) percent annual chance flood elevation (FEMA, 2000). No adverse impacts to ESA -listed species or floodplain function are anticipated as a result of project activities as no in -water work is proposed and due to project minimization coupled with mitigation actions. 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 10 March 14, 2014 Chapter 5. Species Information WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps only list one habitat, estuarine intertidal habitat, within 2,000 feet of the proposed project site. The City of Federal Way lists wetlands, crab, sandlance and smelt habitat, fish species distribution and streams within several miles of the proposed project site. Federally -listed species potentially found within the vicinity of the proposed project include marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus); Steelhead trout, Puget Sound DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss); Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU (Oncorhynchur tsha�vytscha); killer whale, Southern Resident DPS (Orcinus orca); bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus); bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucirpinis); canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger); and yelloweye rockfish (S� stes ruberrzmus). The leatherback sea turtle (Dermocbelys coriacea); humpback whale (Me gaptera novaeangliae); northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis); and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos hornbilis) are not likely to be found within the vicinity of the proposed project; therefore, potential for presence and associated project impacts are highly discountable and are not discussed in detail within,this report. 'JI- Table 3. ESA -Listed Species Potentially Found in King County. Species Name Common Name Federal Listing Status Potential for Impacts Brachyramplius marmoratus Marbled murrelet 1 Threatened Possible Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle Threatened None Mqaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Endangered None Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead trout Threatened Possible Oncorhyncus tshawytscha Chinook salmon Threatened Possible Orcinus orea Southernresident killer whale Endangered Possible Salvelinus confluentus Bull trout Threatened Possible Sebastes paucispinis Bocaccio rockfish Endangered Possible Sebastespinniger Canary rockfish Vr Threatened Possible Sebastes rubenimus. Yelloweye rockfish Threatened Possible Stnx ocadentaks caunna Northern spotted owl Threatened None Ursus arctos honibilis Grizzly bear x Threatened None In consideration of the Washington State and ESA -listed species with possible presence in King County, the review and analysis presented here is relevant to potential riparian habitat impacts and species specific to .the waters of the Puget Sound. Large terrestrial mammals and geographically remote species have been excluded from this analysis with a determination of No Effect due to the project location and surrounding environmental conditions that do not support the presence of these species, acceptable habitat, or other resources. Based on data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and WDFW's PHS and SalmonScape data, a number of species listed under the ESA that may be found in King County and/or the Puget Sound and were considered when investigating listed species presence for the proposed project. A list of these species is found in Table 3. Potential for impacts due to the proposed project and potential species presence in the project vicinity are discussed in Chapter 6. 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center SoundNiew Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 11 March 14, 2014 The following species are not located in the vicinity of the project nor have any likely potential for project impacts. Species for which there may be possible impacts are covered in Chapter 6. • Leatherback sea turtles (Dermoebelys coriacea) typically inhabit onshore and offshore areas in coastal waters (NMFS 2012a). Sightings in Washington waters are mostly coastal and pelagic and no U.S. West Coast nesting sites exist (NMFS and USFWS, 1999). It is reasonable to assume that leatherback sea turtles do not use the Action Area; therefore, the project will have No Effect on leatherback sea turtle. 0 Humpback whale (Mega ptera novaeangliae) range from southern CaEfornia, north through the Aleutian Islands while feeding in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS, 1991). However, Humpback whales are rarely present in the south Puget Sound. They are more likely to remain in outer coast waters during migration. There were reported humpback whale sightings in the Puget Sound in 1976, 1978, and two in 1988 (Calambolddis, et al, 1990). Due to the unlikelihood of humpback whales entering Gig Harbor and the complete lack of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the Action Area, the project will have No Effect on humpback whale. Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) prefer habitat found.in mature coaiferous forests. Z. Habitat for northern spotted owl was not identified within the subject property (USFWS 2008). It is more likely that northern spotted owl would be encountered within the North Cascades National Park where approxinately 18,200 acres of habitat areas for northern spotted owl habitat exist (University- of Washington 2006). No habitat for this species is found in the Action Area; therefore, the project will have No Effect on northern spotted owl. Grizzly bear (Unav araos 6orribilis) preferred habitat serxff-open country usually in mountainous areas. These animals are found in the Selkirk Mountains or the Cascade Range and will not be found within the Action Area. No' habitat is found in the Action Area for this species (USFWS,&3); therefore, the project will have No Effect on grizzly bear. 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 12 March 14, 2014 Chapter 6. Project Effects on ESA -Listed Species An analysis of project affects to ESA -listed species that have potential for presence in the vicinity is detailed below. The species assessed include marbled murrelet, steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, killer whale, bull trout, bocaccio rockfish, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. Potential project impacts are evaluated based upon specific habitat components that would be altered or removed and the degree to which such alteration may occur; the abundance and distribution of the habitat components; the distribution and population levels of the species (if known); the possibility of direct or indirect impacts to the species and/or habitat, and the potential to mitigate for adverse effects. 6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Potential impacts of the project on ESA -listed species prima inclu Fobnstruction noise, local disturbance of beach sediments, alteration of littoral drift patterns, and lessened pollution and improved habitat following mitigation actions. 6.2 Short -Term Effects 6.2.1 Sound ' Impacts to the local environment from project noise may occur within a three hundred sixteen (316) foot terrestrial radius of the Project Area as the estimated sound level from the use of project machinery is higher than the estimated ambient sound level in Federal Way. Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health -related consequences (WSDOT, 2013). Short-term effects due to noise will likely be minor due to the high ambient noise and the short attenuation area. In: addition, all construction; noise is terrestrial and will have no effect on aquatic species. 6.2.2 Increased Turbidity Short-term impacts include temporary and local disturbance of beach sediments due to necessary movement of machinery, debris removal, and the beach nourishment actions. The dilapidated barge frame is only proposed removed to a substrate depth of approximately one foot to avoid major sediment disturbance. The -project minimizes impacts due to sediment disturbance through the use of Best Management Practices (S1bIP's) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures and avoidance of in -water work. 6.3 Long -Term Effects Long-term and permatic nt effects of the project will include structural changes along the shoreline with rockery along a wcstcrn portion of the toe of slope plus the restored and opened area of intertidal habitat after the removal of existing and polluting structures. These actions may directly improve beach nourishment and the pattern of littoral drift along the shoreline at and adjacent to the site but will also provide long-term benefits to water quality with the removal of creosote treated material, plastics, and assorted metal trash. For a detailed geotechnical analysis, please see the Geologic Hazards Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Report (Schembs, 2012 and revised 2013). 1113,0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 13 March 14, 2014 The project will additionally provide beneficial indirect effects. The northernmost exposed portion of beach in the east portion of the subject property will retain deposition functions and littoral drift will be facilitated along the beach at the project area after the removal of existing structures, such as the barge which currently acts as a groin, leaving upland substrate sources available for nourishment of adjacent beach areas. 6.4 Determinations of Effect 6.4.1 Critical Habitat Critical Habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as: (1) The spf area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conserva may require special management considerations or protection geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is �lis`.t- C', essential for the conservation of the species. Critical Haa itat fo. Constituent Elements (PCE's), as defined below. % 6.4.2 Primary Constituent Elements ifi a�r' as'within the geographical -1 %the Act, on which are found .ori of the species and (b) which id (2) Specific areas outside the :)n a determination such areas are a listed species contains Primary In accordance with Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA, and" regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas occupied at the time of listing to propose a Critical Habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These features are the PCE's laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth for normal behavior. (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. 6.4.3 Species Determinations Table 4. Species Determination Summary. Species Name _ Common Name _ Marbled Murrelet Federal Listing Status Determination of Effect Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead trout Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Oncorhyncus tshawytscha Chinook salmon Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Ordnus area Southern Resident killer whale Endangered No Effect Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Sebastespaucispinis Bocaccio Rockfish Endangered No Effect Sebastespinniger Canary Rockfish Threatened No Effect Sebastes rubenimus Yelloweye Rockfish Threatened No Effect 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 14 March 14, 2014 Marbled Murrelet and Critical Habitat Brachyrhampus marmoratus — Threatened, listed 1992 Critical habitat designated May 1996 (50 CFR Part 17.11) Suitable habitat for murrelet (Teachout, 2013) may be found in the vegetated shoreline bank within the Action Area; however, no suitable habitat is proposed for removal and the actions are proposed outside the nesting period. The project is not likely to adversely impact nesting murrelet. No in - water work is proposed and the small increases in temporary and localized turbidity and shoreline disturbance during the actions are not likely to disturb foraging marbled murrelet. IIowever, they may be present within the Action Area. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA -listed species that may be present in the proposed project area.. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for murrelets is approximately 92 dBA at nest sit and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA (WSDOT, 2013). Noise lelel may be as high as 85 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at 31.6 feet. The p _;..-posed actions May Affect, but are Not Likely to Adversely Affect marbled murrelet. N`oritical habitat is identified within the vicinity of the Action Area „ther_e .will be`'No Effect on ma lec� murrelet critical habitat. Puget Sound Steelhead DPS and Critical Habitat Oncorhymbus mykiss — Threatened, listed May 11, 2007 Critical habitat designated September 2, 2005(50 CT'R Part 17.11) Migrating and/or juvenile steelhead may occupy the intertidal Action Area during higher tidal elevations as refuge or for feeding. Temporary and localized increases in turbidity during the higher tidal conditions may have an effect on the usetof�tlie habitat, though very minor, due to project actions only occurring during lower tidal elevations. The project actions coupled with the minimization and beach restoration actions are anticipated to create only temporary and discountable impacts; therefore, the. project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound steelhead.---. _ Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. ESU and Critical Habitat Oncorhynehus tshamytscha — Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 28, 2005 Critical h bitat designated Septemmbeer 2, 2005(5&tC Part 17.11) Migradn rid/or juvenile �-'-nook may occupy the intertidal Action Area during higher tidal elevations as refuge or for fee . g. Temporary and localized increases in turbidity during the higher tidal conditions may have anffect on the use of the habitat, though very minor, due to project actions only occu ring duri,gg lower tidal elevations. The project actions coupled with the minimization and` ch, restoration actions are anticipated to create only temporary and discountable impacts; therefore, the project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Similarly, the project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Chinook salmon critical habitat. Southern Resident Killer Whale and Critical Habitat Ordnus orca — Endangered, listed November 15, 2005 Critical Habitat designated November 2006 (71 FR 69054) Southern Resident Killer Whale may be found in the Puget Sound, Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca during spring through fall (Wiles, G.J., 2004). The website www.orcanetwork.org list sightings near the vicinity of the Action Area as infrequent. Killer whale may be found in South Puget Sound 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Sound -view Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 15 March 14, 2014 from November through January (BergerABAM, 2012). A Southern Resident Killer Whale sighting compilation between 1990 and 2008 (Osborne, 2008) has compiled data regarding the average number of orca sightings per month over an 18 year period. October through February contain the highest number of sightings per month. Due to lack of habitat in the shallow Action Area; the localized and temporary nature of sediment impacts using BMPs and beach restoration measures; and no in -water work, the proposed actions will have No Effect on Southern Resident killer whales. Almost the entire Puget Sound has been designated as Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale, excluding areas that are less than twenty feet deep during periods of high tide (NMFS, 2012). Under the ESA, "Critical Habitat" is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by. the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation." ThOr proposed project will have no long term effects on marine areas where water is deeper than twenty feet at`periods of high tide. Therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on Southern Resident�l�lle,_ whale critical habitat. Bull Trout and Critical Habitat Salvelinus confluentus — Threatened, listed November 1, 1999 Critical habitat designated October 18, 2010(75FR63898) Migrating and/or juvenile bull trout may occupy the intertidal Action Area during higher tidal elevations as refuge or for feeding. Temporary and localized increases in turbidity during the higher tidal conditions may have an effect on the use of the habitat, though very minor, due to project actions only occurring during lower tidal elevations (aside from project staging). The project actions coupled with the minimization and beach restoration actions are anticipated to create only temporary and discountable impacts; therefore, the project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound bull trout. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable. The project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect bull trout critical habitat. PugevSound Rockfish Bocacco rockfish Sebastes paucispinis —Endangered, listed July 27, 2010; Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Threatened, listed July 27, 2010; Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes entomelas —Threatened, listed July 27, 2010. Rockfish larvae elagic, often occupying the surface of open waters, under floating algae, detached seagrass, iZ kel � . Juvenile bocaccio and canary rockfish settle onto nearshore water habitats with rocky or Ec - le substrate that support kelp growth at 3 to 6 months of age, and move to progressively deeper waters as they grow (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002). The likelihood of juveniles or adults of ESA -listed rockfish within the project's relatively shallow and non -rocky habitats is highly discountable. Juvenile yelloweye rockfish do not typically occupy intertidal waters and shallow habitats (Love et al. 1991). Adult yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio typically occupy waters deeper than 120 feet (Love et al. 2002), and are unlikely to occur at the project location. Bocaccio have not been documented in the Puget Sound since 2001, although it is presumed that an extant population exists (NMFS 2008a). Canary rockfish have been documented throughout the 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Sound«ew Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 16 March 14, 2014 Puget Sound (Miller and Borton 1980), although numbers are relatively low compared to other rockfish species (Palsson, et al 2009, NWS 2008a). Yelloweye rockfish are considered relatively rare in the Puget Sound, and they are observed more frequently in north Puget Sound than in southern areas (Miller and Borton 1980). Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high —relief zones with crevices and sponge gardens (Love et al 2002). Juveniles move from shallow rocky reefs to deeper pinnacles and rocky habitats as they mature (NMFS 2008a). Adults are most common between 300 to 600 feet water depth, sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet deep (Love et al 2002). The existing substrate along the project's shoreline is not ideal habitat for rockfish recruitment and juvenile rearing which is typically associated with vegetated (recruitment) and deeper hard substrate (rearing) high -relief deep -water habitat. In addition, the nearshore habitat is largely lacking any eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation preferred as foraging substrates by juvenile and larval rockfish (BergerABAM 2012). Deeper portions of Puget Sound provide suitable habitat for adult and juvenile rockfish. Due to lack of rockfish habitat features and the mit i al, temporary nature of sediment impacts in the project area, the proposed project will have No E.Mct on these distinct population segments of rock ish. 3 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 17 March 14, 2014 Chapter 7. Mitigation and Monitoring 7.1 Proposed Mitigation The project proposes to reduce risk to upland improvements as well as clean up existing anthropogenic impacts on the beach and restore impacted shoreline functions. Existing impacts are proposed to be removed with the carefully designed and greatly minimized project. Project access is only possible from the water. Staging for all will involve the use of a construction barge arriving at high tide in order to bring a tracked machine and materials. The use of construction barge to access the project will be at high tide only in order to mininuze grounding out on the beach. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures (TESC) measures will be installed along the bank prior to careful removal of stairway and other dilapidated features. A tracked excavator will clean the area of historic creosote pile bulkhead and the existing footprint. All creosote pile from the existing dilapidated bulkhead will be disposed of in an approved upland site. Repairing the access stairway is proposed concurrently and from stable upland staging configuration to minimize beach impacts. Proposed mitigation actions include the removal of dilapidated caosole pile bulkhead, and scattered individual and grouped creosote pile, and the dilapidated barge frame are also identified in City of Federal Way Coastal Restoration Opportunities, Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (Figure 14, City of Federal Way, May 2006). The barge proposed for removal is located on approximately two thousand nine hundred seventy-five (2,975) square feet of intertidal habitat, with an obscured bottom located approximately one to two feet deep over -approximately half the area with some obscured bottom located beyond three feet depth or lower below the substrate (personal communication Gus Ripple, Applicant 's representative). The removal of this barge and other debris will directly open up approximately three thousand (3,000) square feet of shoreline habitat for potential intertidal species use and will also remove a functional groin thus improving even more shoreline habitat in the lirtoral drift shadow. Native shoreline plantings will also improve riparian cover and further stabilize the eroding bank. Debris proposed for removal in the cleanup actions are included in 'fable I. In order to provide sediment inputs to the beach over time and under high tidal conditions and storm events, beach nourishment along the face of the proposed rock wall will be implemented (pens. Comm. Laura Arber, W DFW, October 2012). The material will be coarse sand rather than the usual 50%-50°/q mix of pea gravel and course sand recommended by WDFW in order to be more consistent with the sandier substrate and natural upland sources. Sand will be spread along the entire length of the bulkhead waterward for a distance of six lineal feet to a non -uniform depth of zero to six inches. The length of the proposed rock wall is forty-five (45) linear feet. Approximately seven and a half (7.5) cubic yards of sand will be required per WDFW specifications (calculation for cubic yards of beach nourishment = X(9)(.5)/27 as provided by Arber March 11, 2013). Nourishment will be conducted within 72 hours following bulkhead construction. The use of natural materials in addition to the bioengineering methods proposed are anticipated to minimize impacts to existing shoreline bank deposition function across the site to be further enhanced by the addition of the proposed beach nourishment. 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 18 March 14, 2014 No clearing of shoreline vegetation is proposed. In addition, planting of disturbed riparian areas on the bank above the proposed rock wall is proposed along with supplemental planting of evergreen trees in deciduous dominated areas is proposed (Appendix B). Table 5. Debris and structures to be removed. Shoreline location Items to be removed Offsite Moving east —3' metal debris Offsite Moving east —3' x 14" black plastic pipe Offsite Moving east Black plastic nettin Offsite Moving east 27" tire Offsite Moving east 26" tire Offsite Moving east —10' x 20" diameter metal scrap broken culvert Offsite Moving east 40" tire Offsite Movin east —3' long car bumper Offsite Moving east 23" tire Offsite Movin east 14" black plastic pipe -AL Onsite near west boundary 2 x 24" tires Onsite moving east 15" black plastic pipe Onsite moving east 21" tire Onsite moving east 27" tire At bulkhead Creosote pile wall, 41.5" radius pile a - rrox. 9' long each. Numberin 26 + 19=45 total. At bulkhead 25" tire Base of stairway —36" tires in wall of 13 visible tires under ivy Base of stairway Grill cover metal Base of stairway 40" fire Near bare frame 24" tire Bare frame —85' x 35' with —9" x T' timbers and metalspikes Near bare frame 38" tire West dolphin Dolphin view of 3 pile; 33", 41" and 41" diameter by —15' tall (survey hei ht Inside bare frame Shredded rubber tube and 20' long x 4" diameter black plastic pipe Moving east 3 x 28"4tires In front of creosote pile bulkhead Loose creosote pile —9' long x 41.5" radius from bulkhead 7.2 Monitoring Monitoring is proposed for a total of two years. A total of four monitoring plots will be installed for this project, as described below: 1. Two vegetation monitoring plots will be installed directly upland of the project. 2. Two beach habitat monitoring plots will be installed below OHW in the project area. 3. Four photographic points will be installed corresponding to monitoring locations. 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC I3abitat Assessment Report 19 March 14, 2014 Monitoring plot construction consists of survey flagging installed at an upland location corresponding to each of the monitoring plots. Each photographic plot is installed to provide photographs to document changes to the shoreline over time. Each monitoring location will be located using a Trimble GeoXT global positioning system (GPS) receiver. The location of each monitoring plot will be recorded and mapped for reporting purposes. Vegetation Monitoring Vegetation monitoring provides an overview of changes in wetland conditions over the monitoring period. The plant species composition, densities, and condition are descriptive of the changes occurring at the site. The monitoring methodology will provide quantitative measurements of number of plants per species and qualitative measurement of the robustness of the plants, which is conducted from the monitoring plots whose center point will be located upland of the wall. Habitat Monitonrng Habitat monitoring provides an overview of changes the beach substrate con ons over the monitoring period. The visual inspections and site charae e-N. ati'ons will provide descriptive changes of available habitat occurring at the site. 7.3 Anticipated Benefits It is understood that protective structures on the shoreline can alter shoreline processes and lba-functions including sediment c'lefFosition regime, littoral drift, and riparian vegetation structure and availability. Alteration of such processes can have a negative effect on shoreline habitat. Careful project design was m-A loved to ensure that no net loss of ecological functions is anticipated due to the proposed project (see Alternatives Analysis and Impacts discussion, Chapter 5, Soundview 2013), and the project was further reduced at the request of the City of Federal Way, WDFW, and WSDOE. Existing creosote pile bulkhead, barge groin, and dolphin structures on the beach and shoreline armoring built of large machinery tires and the condition of those structures are creating ongoing impacts including disruption to shoreline processes and impacts to water quality. In addiiion, the shoreline vegetation could use some invasive plant removal in areas near the failed structures and subsequent re -planting of appropriate native plants as proposed in the Assessment Report (Soundview, 2013). The careful project design also includes repairing the access stairway to the minimum necessary area over existing impacts to provide safe access and remove the likelihood of the deposition of `the failed structures onto the beach, further impacting the shoreline environment. In addition, ''the rock stabilization measures proposed are less than the geotechnician's recommended minimum length. Using carefully designed sloping rock wall for protecting the beach access stairway in a more landward position than the existing creosote bulkhead configuration, the new structure will be exposed to less frequent wave energy and the use of sloping rock wall, rather than the vertical creosote pile bulkhead, will increase wave absorption capabilities of the structure and improve potential for localized habitat diversity for marine resources through depositional stratification (Zabawa and Ostrom 1982, Thom et al. 1994a). Further, the soft stabilization methods proposed in other areas use natural materials that deform and adjust over time to changing shoreline conditions and these materials often cause minimal impacts 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 20 March 14, 2014 to nearshore habitats (Cox et al. 1994, Zelo and Shipman 2000, Macdonald et al. 1994). The project proposes the use of non-polluting materials upland of the mean higher high water elevation coupled with the removal of existing impacts to provide an improvement to current conditions. In addition, beach nourishment along the face of the proposed rock wall will be implemented in order to increase available sedimentary inputs to the beach over time and under high tidal conditions and storm events. 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 21 March 14, 2014 Chapter 8. References Broderick. K. 2012. Broderick Architects stair plan for the ABRC, Federal Way. City of Federal Way Municipal Code, Title 15. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/ Envirovision, Herrera, and AHG 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and functions in Puget Sound. An Interim Guide. The Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/neirshore—interim_guide_octobei 2007,_finaLd.taft.pdf FEMA 2000. Letter of Map Amendment for FEMA FIRM Map Panel Number 53033C1225F. February 22, 2000. Fisher and Valasquez. 2008. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species, Dungeness crab (Cancermagister). Washington Department of Fish. and Wildlife. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. NOAA 2010, National Marine Fisheries Website G S mapping, Seattle, Washington http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/map-Apps/mapApps.jsp, Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA. Ecology Publication # 08-06-0.01.\ 4 Soundview Consultants. 2013. Fish `and Wildlife Ilabitat Assessment Report — Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) Shor6ne Protection and Access Repairs. August 2, 2012 — Revised July 12, 2013. Schembs. 2012. Geologic assessment report for the Archbishop of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way, Washington. GeoResources LLC. Thop?, and Williams. 2001. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory and-Paeiflc North-west National Laboratory. April 17, 2001. Triad Associates, 2012. Site survey USACE, 2012. Elevations on Station Datum, National Ocean Service (NOAA). Tacoma, WA. Station ID: 9446484. Accessed from website: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data—menu. shtml?stn=9446484°la20'I'acoma%20WA&type=Datums el Washington State Department of Ecology website for Shoreline Management, 2012 http: / /www. ecy.wa.gov/programs / sea/ sma/laws rules / 173-26/231—modificadons.html Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2012a. Priority Habitats and Species Report accessed from website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2012b. Website for Bald Eagle Management & Protection in Washington State: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/bald—eagle/index.html 1113.0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report 22 March 14, 2014 Appendix A Methods and Tools Table A-1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report. Parameter Method urTnol Website Reference Plant Names USDA Plant Database Isl1ma/planmmda.gov/ Website Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey h=,//avc:hsoilsurvcy.nm,.usd:cunv Website: G1S data based upon: /aimAVci;SnilSurney.i4ns Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States DLpanmeht of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Sertritc in coo]yradon with Washington SmwDepartrncnt of Natural Resources, And Washington Sarre University, Agriculture Hcsearch Center. Washington, D.C, Threatened and Washington Natural h^m-llvrnwslnrtit ,�gn jr{�S � hsc Websimr. Washington Narami Heritage Program (Data Endangered Species Heritage Program postM.to umbsite November ?019). Endangered, threatened, and sensitive planar of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Rcv uree; Washington /amp nh.asne and h�n:Ilw��nvlAnrwa.In vinhplrtE deskllistslnlantsxcaCliltg,] i�nt1 Natural Heritage Program, Olympia. _ r WA Washington Priority 11ulE lwdfw.w•s.�nvlhablVlu; w. Wtbsitc: Priority Habitats and Speeics jPHS) Program rh= Habitats and Species {Dart %Np produced D8/19/09). Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity.' Washington Department of fish and Wdd% (WDFW). NOAA fisheries species h yr 1 r: ti - Wchaitcs list and maps ti i n - - Pe mulatin ns 1 indc s.tim and �: J Iww�c•. n m Fs.n�+�tL+tt silfi3� USPWS snccics lists.by .1 n:1&%vw•.Rvs_ v11. c.,i w -6w,2Ls Website c NF. Ns •n n v' l ti c[a;. s County Species of Local %'V{. FW GIS Data l+iip' Rv2• 'ov rn al Websites mUcs eancl and Importance •�• rl � i ht L Report Vedcral Way Municipal Imp IJ%1 x .niUK rilct�des.asl3s Federal Way Municipal Code Title 15 Prepararion Coec NO, 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report March 14, 2014 Appendix B Project Detail Sheet 1113,0001 Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report March 14, 2014 Z d G 3 � SaS > mg M z a _ ❑ m o00 C4 L m ae, Z P Oo yea a W gv� SEW W5 x� za z W Q O z w dU O 104 a w 4 — ? O pW] a U w V oj� N� aka G a aw Sw3F _ o^ l c QJ d J t • Ada Y i Y ❑ V V F.,x0 F tr' w $ Cl F �j \ U R $ }� a , e � _ i � o i 1 6 C }c G C � Z ; .V. `n o A Fit I &I IF O 1 c b Appendix C Qualifications 1113.0001 Archbishop Burnett Retreat Center Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Assessment Report March 14, 2014 Racheal Villa csouncl/vlEca� �onsu��ants,.: Senior Biologist Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting Professional Experience: 7 years Racheal Villa is a Senior Biologist with professional training and experience in fresh water and marine ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. Racheal has experience in site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, aquatic and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, eelgrass delineations and assessments, biological assessments, benthic surveys, stream assessments, monitoring programs, and mitigation planning. Racheal earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the University of Washington, Seattle. In addition, she attends regular formal training for updated marine, shoreline, stream and wetland assessment methodologies as listed below. Professionally, Racheal has extensive experience with biological evaluations, documentation and coordination of the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Hydraulic Project Approvals and other general state and local regulatory coordination and permitting. Racheal has experience in assessing marine and shoreline systems, addressing water quality issues and watershed ecology, conducting wetland, and stream assessments, preparing compensatory mitigation plans, and preparing aquatic permitting applications. She has been involved in successfully planning and permitting numerous aquatic projects involving fish and wildlife habitat creation, enhancement, and restoration, as well as riparian habitat shoreline restoration actions. These projects regularly require habitat assessments, team coordination and support, development of shoreline, stream restoration designs, development of mitigation plans and performance standards, preparation of JARPA materials, extensive client/agency coordination to secure various Section 404 Nationwide and Individual Permits, 401 Water Quality Certifications, and Hydraulic Project Approvals. She has conducted numerous wetland, stream, marine habitat assessments, mitigation design criteria, management of non-native invasive vegetation, benthic dive surveys, consideration of floodplain dynamics, development of project schedules, and coordination and oversight to ensure regulatory compliance and successful project implementation. In addition, she holds graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life history; restoration of fish communities and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution; and biomonitoring and assessment. Racheal is also a Pierce County Qualified Fisheries Biologist. Education and Professional Development • B.S., Fisheries Biology - University of Washington • Environmental Engineering — University of Central Florida Professional Certifications, Training, and Workshops • Qualified Senior Author Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects — WSDOT • Ordinary High Water Mark Determination, WSDOE • Washington State Wetland Rating System, WSDOE ■ Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, WCTP • Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, WSDOE • Stream Bank Bioengineering, WFCA ■ Open Water Scuba, PADI • Division Wetland Delineation Indicators and Problem Situations Course — (includes 40 hours of Corps wetland delineation methods) ■ Forage Fish Beach Survey training, WDFW • Use of Habitat Equivalency Analysis Model (HEA), NOAA • Mazama Pocket Gopher Survey Protocol training, WDFW • Certified Erosion & Sediment Control Lead, ECO-3 Governmental Certifications & Professional Memberships • American Fisheries Society • Pierce County Qualified Fisheries Biologist FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASsrSSMENT REPORT ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER (ABRC) SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ACCESS REPAIRS AUGUST 2012 - REVISED JULY 2013 FISH &WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER (ABRC) SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ACCESS REPAIRS AUGUST 2, 2012 - REVISED JULY 12, 2013 PROJECT LOCATION 4700 DASH POINT ROAD FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 (CITY OF FEDERAL WAY) PREPARED FOR CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE 710 9TH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLB 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LI.0 has been hired by Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (OCAS) Property and Construction representative, Ed Foster (Applicant) to provide environmental assessment and support for repair of an existing beach access stairway and shoreline bank stabilization on an approximately 36-acre property consisting of two tax parcels located at 4700 Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington (King County Parcel Numbers 112103-9010 and 112103-9029). The project is necessary to maintain existing water -enjoyment use of the site as a retreat center. Both parcels are owned by Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS). Ed Foster (Applicant) of CCAS Property Construction is the owner's representative and project applicant. The subject property is located along the southeast side of Puget Sound, Dumas Bay, within the City of Federal Way, and is situated in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. The ordinary high water (OHW) limit of the shoreline was delineated, and the property nearest the proposed work area was investigated for the presence of fish and wildlife habitat and priority species in the spring of 2012. The investigation identified no regulated habitat other than the Puget Sound abutting the north boundary of the proposed project. In addition, mean higher high water (MHHW) and mean high water (MHW) were delineated using survey data of the shoreline. Development actions within the Puget Sound are likely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and City of Federal Way. Shoreline development actions landward of the OHW are regulated by the WDOE and the City of Federal Way. The regulatory limit for USACE jurisdiction is likely MHHW for actions regulated under Clean Water Act, Section 404, and MHW for actions regulated under Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10. The proposed project is limited to reconstructing the beach access stairway and shoreline bank stabilization adjacent to the stairway with an extension of shoreline stabilization in the form of soft armoring for the remainder of the length of the property. Additional actions include beach cleanup as mitigation for the project. An alternatives analysis provides the rationale for the proposed project as the best fit to meet the purpose and needs of the project, while protecting available habitat and environmental functions to the maximum extent possible. No work below NHIHW, beyond mitigation actions for the project, is proposed at this time; therefore, Federal jurisdiction over the project is likely limited to shoreline restoration actions. The shoreline, waterward from the toe -of -slope consists of sand, pebble and cobble sediments. Anthropogenic debris embedded on the beach includes old creosote pile and dolphins, a tire bulkhead for the stairway landing, numerous scattered tires, and a dilapidated barge. Above ordinary high water there is high vegetated bank, unstable in portions with recent slide activity. Seven buildings, including one large building complex near the shoreline, associated parking areas and driveways currently exist onsite. The vegetated bank and upland areas primarily contain native mixed forested species, with some landscaping surrounding the retreat center buildings. No changes are proposed to upland developed areas. The Puget Sound is known to contain several protected habitats and species. The bluff overlooking Dumas Bay is considered a geologically hazardous area due to steep slopes and landslide and erosion potential. No direct impacts to these habitats and species are proposed and the proposed reconstruction and stabilization project will include best management practices in order to minimize potential for indirect impacts to the protected habitats and species within the Puget Sound waters. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 1 August 2, 2072, Revised July 12, 2013 Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter2. Proposed Project........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Background............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Location................................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Project Description................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter3. Methods......................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter4. Results........................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Puget Sound........................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 8 ........................................................................ 4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Species 8 ..................................................................................... 4.4 Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Buffers........................................................................... 9 4.5 FEMA Mapped Flood Area.................................................................................----.--............ 9 Chapter 5. Alternatives Analysis/Discussion of impacts................................................................ 10 5.1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Marine Shoreline Modifications..................................................,......................................... 14 5.3 Project Impacts.................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 6. Recommendations/Habitat Management..................................................................... 20 6.1 Construction Sequencing and Best Management Practices in the Project Area ..................... 20 6.2 Critical Areas and Buffer/Habitat Management Recommendations ...................................... 20 Chapter7. Conclusions................................................................................................................. 22 Chapter7. References................................................................................................................... 23 Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Aerial Photo of the Project Area Location....................................................................7 Figure 3. Coastal Atlas map of the physical features at the Project Area Location .....................19 Tables Table 1. Shoreline Information Summary.......................................................... - . - - _ 6 Appendices Appendix A — Methods and Tools Appendix B — Background Information Appendix C — Plan Sheets Appendix D — Qualifications 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 11 July 20, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC has been hired by the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (CCAS) Property and Construction representative, Ed Foster (Applicant) to provide environmental assessment and reporting for a proposed reconstruction of beach access and shoreline stabilization project on an approximately 36-acre property consisting of two tax parcels located at 4700 Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington (King County Parcel Numbers 112103- 9010 and 112103-9029). Both parcels are owned by CCAS and Ed Foster is the owner's agent/representative. Ed Foster's phone number is 206-730-7206. The subject property is located along the southeast side of the Puget Sound within the City of Federal Way. The subject property is situated in most of Northwest '/a of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. The subject property contains the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) used for education, training, and group events as well as residences for retired priests with beach access located in the northern portion of the property on a high bank with steep slopes. ABRC consists of one main building complex located approximately 75 feet, measured horizontally, from the top of shoreline slope to the closest point on the northeast corner of the building and three smaller outbuildings adjoining the southwest corner of the main parking area. The main building complex is surrounded by concrete driveway/emergency access road located approximately 15 feet from the top of shoreline slope at the closest point. The beach access stairway extends from a•northwest portion of the emergency access road in a zigzag pattern to the beach. In addition, the subject property contains three residential structures located in the southern portion of the subject property with associated parking area and access driveway running the length of the center of the subject property. The remainder of the property is comprised of mixed forested areas with mostly native plant species. The northernmost site boundary abuts the Puget Sound shoreline and the proposed project location, within the 200 foot shoreline setback. Failure of a small bulkhead and recent slide activity has destabilized the beach access stairway from the 58-foot elevation on the bank to the beach. The stairway landing is located behind the dilapidated creosote pile bulkhead and embedded tire landing on the beach. The current bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the recently delineated ordinary high water (OHW) elevation and is no longer acting as a cohesive bulkhead, rather, several of the individual pile have fallen or are moving apart from each other and high tidal and wave action is evident behind the bulkhead, allowing slumping of the upland at the toe of the slope and subsequent failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The beach contains some embedded debris including tires, creosote piles, dolphins and the remnants of a grounded barge. The project will comply with all portions of FWRC Title 15.05.050(5)(b). An alternatives analysis is provided in Chapter 5 of this report. The project is designed to minimize its impact on the environment; unavoidable impacts will be mitigated via rehabilitation of degraded beach areas by cleaning up debris and pulling creosote piles and dolphins; the project satisfies FWRC 15.05.050, shoreline modifications. The limited hard armoring and soft armoring efforts are proposed to protect existing development and legally established primary structure and one or more substantial accessory structures. The proposed shoreline stabilization is located at or landward of OHW and is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements. Sediment transport impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible; the shoreline stabilization is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the property of others and/or create the need for adjacent stabilization measures. The project proposes reconstruction of the beach access stairway and stabilization of the steep eroding bank in preparation for continued use as a retreat center with shoreline access. This project 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report July 20, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 is proposed within the 200-foot shoreline management zone but does not propose any in -water work at or below mean higher high water (AU IHW) beyond beach cleanup and mitigation actions. The project plan includes a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (IESC) Plan, incorporating best management practices (BMP's) as detailed in Chapter 2.4. The purpose of this fish and wildlife habitat assessment is to identify the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on or'near the proposed project in order to facilitate project design and site management. This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: ■ Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated water bodies; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Standard shoreline buffer/setback locations; • Alternatives analysis for the proposed project; • Proposed site plan map with detail drawings; ■ Construction best management practices and site management recommendations. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 2 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Background ABRC property is located within the 1B — Puget Sound Dumas City of Federal Way planning area. The land designation is Suburban Estates (SE) 1DU/5 acres; Low Density Residential. The shoreline is designated as Urban Conservancy with specific management requirements for shorelines in Federal Way. ABRC is located on approximately 36 acres over -looking Dumas Bay on Puget Sound. The property is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. In addition to the church and retreat center, there is an office, shop/garage, a small house, and residences for retired priests. Property to the west is owned by the Boy Scouts of America and has one building. Properties to the southwest, south and east are developed with single family dwellings on lots generally 1-3 acres in size. 2.2 Location The proposed project is located at 4700 Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington, and situated in the Northwest 'A of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Parcel Numbers 112103-9010 and 112103-9029). To access the site from Interstate 5, northbound, take the I-705 N/WA-7 S exit (exit 133) towards the City Center/Pacific Avenue and proceed 1 mile, keep right at the fork for 0.5 mile following signs for Interstate 705N/City Center/Washington 7 S/ Pacific Avenue. Keep left at the fork, following signs for City Center and merge onto I-705 N follow for 0.7 mile. Take the WA-509 N exit toward Port of Tacoma and proceed 0.2 mile. Turn right onto South 21st Street/WA-509. Continue to follow WA-509 North for 12.1 miles. The site is on the north side of Dash Point Road. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 3 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 2.3 Existing Conditions ABRC contains two developed upland areas separated by a long north -south oriented driveway. The developed areas contain existing structures as described in Chapter 1. The beach access stairway, located in the northwestern portion of the property, has failed due to bulkhead failure and recent slide activity on the shoreline bank. The proximity of the main building complex and emergency access road to the top of bank on the shoreline with destabilized slopes creates a potential for hazardous conditions to upland structures, public and personal safety. The high shoreline bank contains an overall slope of approximately >90 percent. The project area is located along the northernmost property boundary, and Puget Sound shoreline. Recent slide activity on the eastern portions of the shoreline bank was observed to contain slumped area with tall trees fallen onto the beach. The stairway landing is located behind a failed creosote pile bulkhead and embedded tire landing. The existing bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the recently delineated OHW elevation and is no longer acting as a cohesive bulkhead, rather, several of the individual pile have fallen or are moving apart from each other and high tidal and wave action is evident behind the bulkhead, in an area of slumping of the upland at the toe of the slope and subsequent failure of the lower portion of the stairway. Above OHW the shoreline bank contains native species including Douglas fir, western hemlock, big leaf maple and red alder over beaked hazelnut, oceanspray, sword fern, fireweed, thimbleberry, salal, and assorted grasses. Invasive plant species include English ivy and some Himalayan blackberry. Other than the Puget Sound shoreline and the associated critical salmon habitat designated shoreline (Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15.05.040(5)), and steep slopes, no other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on -site or within 300 feet of die shoreline project arca during the May 2012 site inspection. The beach contains sand, cobble substrate with an observed drift line of macroalgae (Ulva sp.) in the upper intertidal area, with embedded debris on the beach including tires, old creosote piles, dolphins and the remnants of a grounded barge. 2.4 Project Description Project details regarding the length of shoreline stabilization treatments have changed after consultations with Washington Department of Ecology, the City of Federal Way, and further site geotechnical analysis. The revisions are described in bold text, replacing details with strikeout text throughout the document. Repair/replacement of the existing beach access stairway, associated bulkhead, and additional bank stabilization is proposed along the shoreline of the subject property. Shoreline stabilization is proposed through a combination of approximately 190 380 linear feet of new constructed rock wall located on the base OHW elevation of 12.4 feet, which is above MHHW (11.8 feet, MLLW), in order to protect the beach access stairway. This rock wall should be built to approximately four (4) feet tall at the base OHW elevation in order to be higher than maximum observed high tidal elevation of approximately 14.6 feet (NII.LW)(USACE, 2012). The remainder of the shoreline at the subject property, approximately 220 340 linear feet, soft armoring along the OHW is proposed to protect upland structures. The soft armoring proposed consists of large woody debris and strategically placed anchor boulders. The project proposes to maintain the current water -enjoyment use (definition in FWRC 15.05.030) of the property. The project timing is proposed to occur within the required fish work window between July 2 and March 2 for protection of potentially present sensitive salmonid and forage fish species. Mitigation actions proposed include those indicated for City of Federal Way Restoration 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 4 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 opportunities (Appendix B7) including removal of a dilapidated grounded barge, embedded- tires, creosote piles and any other non -natural debrislocated on the tidelands. Project staging will involve the use of a construction barge arriving at high tide in order to bring a tracked machine and materials. The use of construction barge to access the project will be at high tide only in order to minimize grounding out on the beach. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures (MSC) measures will be installed along the bank prior to careful removal of stairway and other dilapidated features. A tracked excavator will clean the area of historic creosote pile bulkhead and the existing footprint. All creosote pile from the previous bulkhead will be disposed of in an approved upland site. The installation of the replacement portion of the access stairway will be performed concurrently and from existing upland impervious surfaces Best Management Practices (BMPs) will include: use of 'barged in equipment and supplies instead of driving on the beach or slopes; deposition of a small amount of beach nourishment material to replenish any disturbed tidelands; utilizing work windows to avoid unnecessary impacts to listed and sensitive species; use of existing rock and large woody debris materials to practicable extent possible. In addition, no excavation of native deposits is proposed. The project plan map is included in Appendix C and detail drawings of the proposed project are included with the JARPA for this project. Mitigation for the project is proposed through beach cleanup proposed by City of Federal Way (see Appendix B7) and by the Applicant through the removal of existing debris, including the creosote pile bulkhead, individual and grouped creosote pile (shown on project plan sheet in Appendix C) and the dilapidated barge frame. These actions will be completed concurrently with the installation project actions in order to minimize beach trips and associated impacts. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 5 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 3. Methods This chapter summarizes the methods used to comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Please see Appendix A for further details of methods used in this report. The critical areas, including the critical salmonid habitat, and -OHW were identified, delineated, and assessed by Racheal Villa, a Fisheries Biologist with Soundview Consultants LLC and Railin Peterson, an Environmental Scientist with Soundview Consultants LLC during two site visits in April and May of 2012. The OHW delineation was conducted in accordance with guidance from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Olson and Stockdale, 2008). A review of documents and data obtained from the National Wetland Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Priority Habitats and Species maps, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal Insurance Rate Map, FIRM Panel 1225 of 1725, City of Federal Way critical areas maps accessed via King County iMap, and various photographs were evaluated for documented wildlife observations and/or the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat on or near the site prior to site investigations. In addition, high -resolution aerial photography of the surrounding area was carefully examined. Appendix B contains maps of background data such as soils and resource inventories. Visual observations- using stationary and walking survey methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Site inspections of the shoreline were conducted at varying tidal elevations. Description of features identified on the shoreline are described in Chapter 4 and identified in the plan sheet in Appendix C. OHW was marked with alpha -numerically labeled blue surveyor's flagging secured to vegetation or lathe. The OHW boundary and shoreline topography were surveyed by Triad Associates using typical land -surveying practices. Mean high water (MHW) at 10.8 feet and mean higher high water (MHHW) at 11.8 feet elevations (USACE, 2012 using MLLW reference) were determined using elevation data and mathematical extrapolation to detemrine the location of tidal elevations. The location of the OHW, MHW, MHHW, and other shoreline features are found in Chapter 4 and shown on plan sheets in Appendix C. City of Federal Way Revised Code research and analysis was conducted along with project analysis throughout the assessment period and development of all project documentation. 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 6 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 4. Results - 4.1 Puget Sound The Puget Sound is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject property (Figure 2). The subject property contains natural vegetated shoreline with approximately 60 feet of creosote pile bulkhead, numerous embedded tires, relic creosote pile, and a dilapidated barge frame. Separating the shoreline and upland areas is a high bank with steep eroding slope. The substrate on the beach adjacent to the site consists of sand, pebbles and cobble. Some clumps of macroalgae (Ulva sp.) were observed in the areas below the OHW elevation during the recent site inspections. The Puget Sound, adjacent to the proposed project site, is a designated critical salmon habitat (Federal Way Municipal Code 15.05.040). Protected fish and wildlife species have been identified within the Puget Sound by State and Federal agencies. Littoral drift along the shoreline, according to Coastal Atlas mapping, (Ecology 2012) consists of a divergence zone along the project area shoreline with a small western portion beginning the drift cell that proceeds to the west. To the east of the project area is located another beginning of the divergent drift cell moving to the east. Slope stability near the project area is identified as "unstable" with an area of "unstable recent landslide" identified within the project area (Ecology 2012). Table 1 provides a summary of the shoreline features at the site. 1113.0001 Burnett project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report i August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The shoreline adjacent to the proposed project area contains Critical Salmon Habitat as classified in FWMC 15.05.040. Activities and development conducted in designated Critical Salmon Habitat are required to comply with development standards outlined in FWMC 15.05.040.5. Please see Chapter 4.4 for a discussion of the buffer. Both Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the City of Federal Way list priority habitats data near the vicinity of the proposed project. Federally listed species found within the vicinity of the project are listed in Chapter 4.3. Table 1. Shoreline Information Summary REGULA ED SI ORELYNE HABITAT INFORMATION SUMMARY Water Body Puget Sound WRIA 9 Local City of jurisdiction Federal Way Shoreline Urban Designation Conservancy Buffer/ 200-foot _ :7 Setback SMA setback PHS Estuarine Documented Intertidal Habitat Habitat Location of Shoreline Relative to Project The marine shoreline is located along the north edge of the project area. Buffer Condition The shoreline is mostly natural with some tire and creosote pile debris and a tire bulkhead at stair landing along OHW. Above OHW is a high vegetated bank with >90 percent overall slope. Beach access stairwell stretches from the toe of slope to top -of slope. . Protected Species Present in Project Vicinity See Chapter 4.3 4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Species WDFW only lists one habitat under the protected habitats and species (PHS) documented data within 2,000 feet of the proposed project site. Estuarine intertidal habitat is listed as a priority habitat. The City of Federal Way lists wetlands, crab, sandlance and smelt habitat, fish species distribution and streams within several miles of the proposed project site. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 8 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 i Federally listed species potentially found within the vicinity of the proposed project include marbled murrelet (Braclyrampbus marmoratus), Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU (Oncorbyncbars tsbalvy1scba); Stellar sea -lion, eastern population (Eumotophv jubaW); steelhead, Puget Sound DPS (Oncorbymbus myk.ies); bull trout (Salydiiurs confluentus); humpback whale (Xtegaptera novaencsitliue), killer whale, Southern Resident DPS (Oninus orca); bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinit), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger , yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus). 4.4 Regulated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Buffers Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with development standards outlined in FWMC 15.05.040. 5. Critical salmon habitat regulatory compliance is discussed in Chapter 5.2. Shoreline jurisdiction includes shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030. Shorelands are "those Iands extending Iandward for two hundred feet in all directions from Ordinary High Water. FWMC does not contain any other language relating to saltwater buffers. As such, the property is not subject to a specific buffer size bur actions within the 200-feet measured horizontally from the OHW of the shoreline are regulated udder Fv WMC 15.05.040. 4.5 FEMA Mapped Flood Area Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps accessed through the FEMA website indicate the bulkhead would be located in the 100-year flood plain, or those areas with 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year. It is likely that lower portions of the stairwell will be in 100- year flood area. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) data identifies 8.5 feet (NGVD 29)(approximately 14.8 feet, MLLW) as the area with a one (1) percent annual chance flood elevation (FEMA, 2000). 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 9 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 5. Alternatives Analysis/Discussion of impacts 5.1 Purpose and Need National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and FWMC require consideration of the alternatives to the proposed project. The applicant has prepared a project plan that includes replacement of damaged portions of beach access stairway and replacement of an existing bulkhead at a more upland location than the existing dilapidated bulkhead and made of rock instead of creosote treated pile. Additional shoreline stabilization is proposed using soft armoring methods in order to stabilize areas of recent erosion of the shoreline bank below upland structures, including the emergency access road and the main retreat center building and parking area. Erosion of the shoreline is due to wave action during high tidal elevations and storm events, rather than from upland conditions. The stairway down the steep slopes is necessary to maintain beach access for site use, established in 1956. The shoreline is mostly vegetated beyond the slide areas. Project actions, beyond mitigation actions, are proposed landward or at the ordinary high water elevation. The existing bulkhead is located waterward of OHW elevation, near MHHW, and has failed to protect the base of slopes at the stairway. This updated report addresses comments in the February 27, 2013 Third Party Review prepared by Landau Associates and June 10, 2013 email correspondence from David Pater, Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). This report also addresses items discussed during our May 23, 2013 site visit with the DOE's David Pater and Hugh Shipman, and City of Federal Way's Janet Shull and Isaac Conlen, and our subsequent June 12, 2013 meeting with the City's personnel. A geotechnical assessment by GeoResources LLC (Schembs, 2012 and Revised in 2013) determined a minimum four foot high rock wall should be built at the average OHW base elevation of approximately 12.4 feet (1V W datum) to ensure protection of slopes behind the rock wall, at least above the maximum observed high tidal elevation of approximately 14.6 feet (M LW)(USACE, 2012), and above the FEMA SFHA as discussed in Chapter 4.5. The project plan also includes soft armoring measures to stabilize the shoreline along the remainder of the property in order to prevent future major slides and subsequent potential loss of stairway or other existing upland structures. Current site conditions are described in Chapter 2, and shown in site maps in Appendix C. Water - enjoyment, educational, and other use for the retreat center includes beach access provided by the damaged stairway located in the northwestern portion of the subject property. The stairway extends from the access road at approximately 178 feet elevation and traverses the steep slope to approximately 13 feet in elevation near the toe of the slope. The proposed project would meet the following needs: 1. Provide safe beach access; 2. Stabilize the steep slope and soft sediments with hard armoring in the vicinity of the stairway in order to ensure future stability of the stairway and minimize potential future failures; 3. Soft armoring of adjacent shoreline in order to protect upslope facilities; 4. Protect existing beach habitat and critical environmental processes to the maximum extent possible, while fulfilling purpose and need for the project; 5. Restore compromised intertidal habitat by removing anthropogenic debris, such as the creosote pile bulkhead, individual creosote pile and pile clusters, tires, and other such debris. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 10 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 In defining the range of alternatives to be examined for this project, the no action alternative, proposed pmject alternative (partial hard and soft armoring), fully soft armored shoreline, and fully hard armored shoreline alternatives were explored. Factors to be considered: 1. Stated purpose and need 2. Environmental setting and protection of the habitat and processes 5.1.1 No Action Alternative If no action is taken to repair the stairway and stabilize the shoreline bank, physical consequences to the local environment and operational consequences to the facility under current use are anticipated. Descriptions of the physical characteristics of the No Action Alternative include leaving the shoreline bank in current condition (Chapter 2) and the damaged stairway in place. Further movement of the material at the toe of the slope under the stairway may result in further destabilization of the stairway and future destabilization of structures directly upslope. Use of the stairway in its current unstable condition creates a hazard. The emergency access road is approximately 15 feet, horizontally, from the top of the slope and retreat center building is approximately 75 feet, horizontally, behind the access road. The use of these structures if adjacent slopes were destabilized, may create hazardous conditions and is not an acceptable alternative to fulfill purpose and need for use at the subject property. Therefore, the operational characteristics of the No Action Alternative are not a viable option. Environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative include the introduction of additional pollutants and debris to the beach with the eventual addition of the failed structures onto the beach as debris. The beach at the site is currently embedded with debris including creosote pile bulkhead and individual creosote pile, as well as old tires, and other items such as derelict netting. The existing stairway is made of wood, metal posts and supports, the metal becoming pollutant if deposited onto in -water habitat. In addition, the proposed beach cleanup actions as mitigation for the proposed project would provide environmental as well as aesthetic benefits and the No Action Alternative would forgo the beneficial actions of beach cleanup, leaving the existing pollutants and debris in place. 5.1.2 Full Hard Armoring Alternative If full repair of the stairway and hard armoring of the entire property shoreline are implemented, physical consequences to the local and adjacent environment are anticipated. Description of hard armoring of approximately 720 linear feet of shoreline includes the following Features. Shoreline armoring is used to protect upland structures and property; however, there are numerous physical and environmental consequences to hard armoring and generally, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on shoreline processes, including sediment transport, geomorphology, and biological functions (Department of Ecology, 2012). The likely consequences to hard armoring the entire shoreline at the site include cutting off sediment supply from behind the bulkhead to the beach at the site as well as to adjacent beach areas; changing the direction of wave energy on the shoreline from directly into the toe of the slope or the beach slope to being reflected back out and down and/or laterally to result in scour of the beach, resulting in narrowing of the high tide beach, eroding away fine sediments without replacement, and the subsequent coarsening of beach sediment. As beach sediments become more coarse, less potential forage fish spawning area 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 11 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 would be available due to unsuitable sediments and beach conditions and less prey for juvenile fish may be, produced. In •addition, hard -armored erosion control structures often raise the water table on the landward side, leading to build up of pressure in the bank behind the armoring structure, although rock armoring is somewhat porous and may allow water seepage from the uplands. And no seeps or drainages were observed at the site. Hard armoring also diminishes the available low - hanging vegetation for shading of the upper beach or bank, leading to loss of cover and/or potential food source for salmon and other marine species utilizing nearshore habitat. The beach at the project site includes a divergence zone with unstable slopes (Ecology, 2012b). The disruption in the movement of sediment along the entire site would affect property on both sides of the project area. Erosion of the beach in front of the site would lead to more movement at the beginning of the drift cells on either side of the site and subsequent erosion of the bluffs near the adjacent structures. Residential and group use properties are located adjacent to the site with structures near the shoreline that would likely be affected should the entire Project Area receive the hard armoring treatment due to erosion of the beach. 5.1.3 Full Soft Armoring Alternative If full repair of the stairway and soft armoring of the entire property shoreline, physical consequences and operational consequences to the facility under current use are anticipated. Soft armoring techniques proposed for the project employ the use of carefully positioned large woody debris anchored in select locations with large rock (boulders) to anchor the large woody debris in place. Soft armoring of the shoreline allows more sediment movement and vcgetation in proximity to the upper shoreline. Description of soft armoring of approximately 720 linear feet of shoreline includes the following features. No net loss of ecological functions is anticipated; however, the stability of sediments under the stairway may be compromised. C►v several years the full soft armoring alternative is likely to result in structural failure at the base of the stairwell which may compromise the structural integrity of the stairwell further up the slope. Failure of the structural integrity of the stairwell would create a safety hazard and an environmental hazard if debris from the stairwell were to fall into waters of the state. Therefore full soft armoring would not likely provide the first project need of providing safe beach access in the long run and is not considered a viable option. 5.1.4 Mixed Armoring Alternative — Preferred In order to balance the purpose and need of the project with the environmental functions and features at the site, the proposed project includes hard armoring using a rockwall for stabilization at the stairway and to the west only to support the replacement stairs and compromised slope area. The project revisions incorporate further impact minimization measures to meet the project goals with significant reductions in the length of rockwall and soft armoring treatments proposed. These measures were designed after consultation with DOE and City staff as well as additional geotechnical analysis as prescribed by GeoResources as follows: Based on our observations, subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering analysis, we recommend 190feet ofnew hard armor (rock bulkhead) extend east from the westproperty, line. This distance will be adequate to protect the existing stairs. Continuing east ftom the hard artuot ng, werecommend thata new soft shore stabilization system approximately220 feet in length be installed tomitigate wave and tidal erosion below the pottion of the bluff 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 12 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 down slope of the fire lane, � here several area -of active sboreline erosion and bluff regression were observed. In order to support the structures upslope, the project proposes to modify the fernftinder approximately 220 feet of the shoreline with soft armoring. The armoring of the stairway area provides more stability to the structure closest to the erosive forces on the beach and would likely minimize the need for future repairs in the localized area. The surrounding toe of the slope is proposed buffered with LWD anchored with key large rock and directional positioning in order to remain in place to the maximum extent possible. It is likely that the soft armoring structures will move with extreme weather and tidal conditions; however, these structures are more easily repositioned or replaced than the Fixed rock waIl, stairway, and upslope structures. No net loss of ecological functions are anticipated. All alternatives, excluding the no action alternative, would implement a compensatory mitigation plan. Mitigation includes removal of beach debris including a tire bulkhead, dispersed tires, creosote piles, the frame of a disintegrated barge and any other non -natural debris. Mitigation will open up more intertidal habitat and restore some of the natural sediment transport functions. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 13 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 5.2 Marine Shoreline Modifications As a portion of the site already contains modifications, including bulkhead, and as no in -water work is proposed as part of the redevelopment actions, the only direct impacts to the marine environment and sensitive species will likely be during construction staging of equipment on the beach and during mitigation actions for the project. In addition, best management practices proposed for the project along with approved TESC measures will likely minimize any potential for indirect impacts to habitats and species in the Puget Sound. Mitigation is proposed and incorporates portions of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Coastal Restoration Opportunities (City of Federal Way map, 2006; Appendix 137) including proposed actions such as the removal of creosote pile bulkhead, dilapidated barge, creosote dolphins, embedded tires, and other debris followed by careful raking of beach to restore any disturbed areas. Per Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, an analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (FWRC 14.05.010 and Chapter 197-11 WAC). An analysis of environmental impacts is provided in the Chapter 5, alternative analysis and throughout the following code analyses. The project will comply with standards found in FWRC Title 15.05.040; General development standards. Mitigation actions will include avoidance and minimization of the action by not proposhig the full armoring of the shoreline option. Further avoidance and minimization of impacts is proposed through the project revisions (GeoResources, 2013). Impact minimization also includes using modern soft armoring techniques for approximately half of the shoreline stabilization measures, including the use of large woody debris selectively positioned along the ordinary high water and partially buried in place and anchored with boulders. The mitigation proposed for the action is proposed to rectify the impact by rehabilitating and repairing the affected environment. FWRC Title 15.05.040 (5) Critical salmonid habitats. All salt water shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats. Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the following ...: (a) Structures which prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead are prohibited. Fish bypass facilities shall allow the upstream migration of adult fzch. Fish bypass facilities shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. (b) Shoreline modijication structures may intrude into critical salmonid habitats only where the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met.• (i) An alternative alignment or location is not feasible; (ii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; (iii) If the project will create unavoidable adverse impacts, the impacts are mitigated by crating in - kind replacement habitat near the project. inhere in -kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute; (iv) The project satisfies all provisions of FWRC 15.03.050, Shoreline modicakons. 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 14 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 In compliance with impact mitigation and critical salmon habitat requirements under FWMC (15.05.040(1)and (5)) this project proposes to stabilize the steep bank above OHW'but within the jurisdictional shorelands by implementing a rock wall in an area limited to that area directly affecting the stability of the beach access stairway and soft armoring limited to shoreline areas necessary to prevent the collapse of structures and an emergency lane at the top of slope. a. As the proposed structures are proposed located wholly above the OHW on the marine shoreline and will not affect any freshwater environments, it is not anticipated to prevent the migration of salmonids or any other fish species. b. Shoreline modification is not proposed in the waterward environment within Federal Way defined critical salmon habitat; further, (i) there is no other alternative alignment or location for bank stabilization to occur. (H)The project has been designed to minimize impacts by only implementing structures above OHW and using the minimurn amount of hard armoring to protect structures necessary for established site uses. (W)To mitigate for the rock wall, a dilapidated barge, creosote pile debris and tire debris will be remove from intertidal areas to open up all intertidal habitat areas on the project site. (iv)FWRC 15.05.050 standards are addressed in the following section. In addition, the project complies with standards found in FWRC Title 15.05.050(1)shoreline modifications. Construction methods described in Chapter 2, propose that construction staging from a barge be implemented in order to prevent grounding out on the beach and aquatic vegetation is not anticipated to be impacted beyond minor disturbance, and minimal riparian vegetation will be impacted to implement the rock wall and soft armoring. Large woody debris will not be removed below OHW, in -Fact, some LWD will be added upland during implementation of soft armoring. Compliance with Geologically hazardous areas regulations FWMC 15.05.040(4)(b) is discussed in geological assessment for the project by GeoResources LLC (Schembs, 2012 and Revised 2013). 15.05.050 Shoreline modafcaiions. (1) Shoreline stabilitadon. Shoreline stabilisation may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment. Hard armoring (eg., bulkheads and riprap) is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit in the urban conservancy environment. Soft -shore stahi#Xakon may be permitted in the urban conservancy environment. Shoreline stabila anon proposals shall address the following.• (a) Shoreline stabilisation, inelrrrling bulkheads, shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the ciy's shorelines. In order for shoreline stabili.Tation to be permitted the city mast find that- (i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a quaked profesnonal, that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and the urgency associated with the specific situation; and (V) Soft -shore stabili!�ahon alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilitaiaon, graael berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioriti.Zed over structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" Sffecture alternative shall he utilized; and (ail) In the case ofproposed hard armoring stabiktahon solutions (eg, bulkheads and nprap), erosion from soaves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to a legally estabkbed primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water -dependent development, ecological restoration) toxic clean-up remediation projects, or public impmvements; and (av) In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilisation is located landward of the ordinary high seater mark; and } (v) The proposed shoreline stab&7'41ion is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements; and 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 15 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 (vi) The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment trans possible; and port are mirfirrui�ed to the greatest extent (vii) Shoreline stabill.Zation shall not have an adverse impact on the properly of others and shall be designed so as not to create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere; and (viii) Shoreline stabilstation shall not significantly inte!fere with normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the seater body and shall be constructed using an approved filter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage of surface and groundwater without internal erosion of fine material,• and (ix) Shoreline stabilisation shall not be used to create new lands; and (x) Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline stabilrtation proposal within flesh water lake shorelines; and (xi) Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and (xii) Retagetatren with native plants is required as part of the shoreline siabih.Zation project; and (xiii) Shoreline stahiktWkn shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological fungi ons (b) When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection (1)(a) of this section, the following standards shall apply. (i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabthtejtian structure is no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters, or one foot in height above the elevation of ordinary high water mark on lakes, measured finny grade on the svatenvard side of the bulkhead or structure; and (ii) When a bulkhead or other stabilitation structure has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead or structure must be located at or landward of the ordinary high water mark - (id) Repair of an existing bulkhead or other stabili.Zation structure is permitted provided that the repaired bulkhead or structure is not relocated fr:rther waterward or increased in height. (iv) If an existing bulkhead or other stabili�atE•on structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction, provided application for requiredpermits is made within oneyear of destntetion. Addi ons to or increases in site of existing shoreline stabi#.Zadan measures shall be considered new structures. (v) Soft -shoreline stabili.Zation measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. (vi) The project satisfies the provisions ofFWRC 15.05.040(5)(b). As discussed in project description the proposed project is for a water -enjoyment use and protection of existing structures upslope of the shoreline modification within the Urban Conservancy Environment. The stabilization requires that a shoreline conditional use permit is required for hard armoring in the urban conservancy environment, while soft -shore stabilization may be permitted, in this project a shoreline substantial development permit will be required for new shoreline structures. a) The property's entire shoreline is subject to erosion (Schembs, 2012) and thus all need some sort of stabilization for protection of existing structures upslope. Recent additional geotechnical analysis has resulted in further limiting the extent of shoreline stabilization treatments proposed. (i)Due to recent slide events and current state of the beach access stairway necessitates shoreline stabilization measures as soon as possible. The use of the property is currently disrupted by the hazardous condition of the stairway and upslope structures are in danger of destabilization within the near term (Schembs, 2012). (ii)A appteyimately4ridf Approximately 220 of the total 720 linear feet of the shoreline will e is proposed treated with soft armoring. (iii)The creosote pile bulkhead has failed and signs of erosion from waterward, rather than from landward erosion, are evident behind the failed structure, necessitating protection to the toe of the slope from wave and tidal 1113.0001 Brunett Project $oundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 16 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 J actions. (iv)All stabilization features will be implemented landward of OHW. (v)The rock wall is proposed for the minimum size needed to protect the stairway and has been revised to include approximately 190 linear feet from the western property boundary. (vi)The geotechnical data for the project indicates that littoral sediment transport will be maintained post -project. (vii)The soft armoring proposed for the majority of the shoreline is not anticipated to interfere with sediment transport along the beach in a way that affects neighboring properties. As shown in Appendix B (Coastal Mapping, Ecology 2012), the shoreline at the site is located in the center of a divergence zone for littoral drift and the direct action of tidal and wave energy faces directly into the site, with the beginning of divergent drift zones extending out to the west and east from the site. The soft armoring at the majority of the site is anticipated to slow the movement of sediments from the toe of the slope but not to undercut and speed erosion in adjacent areas as described in the alternatives analysis Chapter 5.1 (vii�No streams, drainages, or significant hyporheic flows were identified in background research of the subject property, nor were identified in the recent site inspections and the project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of groundwater. (ix)No new lands are proposed nor are likely due to the project. (x)No treated wood product will be used during the proposed project,(xl) in contrast any existing creosote piles will be removed from the site. Even with the inhibition of erosion, natural sediment transport will be enhanced by removing a large barge frame and other debris located on intertidal areas. (xii)Revegetation of the shoreline is not likely due to the lack of impacts to vegetation, only minor beach sediment disturbance is anticipated during installation of the shoreline stabilization; however, the project proposes no net loss of bank vegetation and will provide for replanting of appropriate native vegetation per Appendix C of this document. (xiii)No net loss of ecological function, is anticipated. The alternatives analysis in Chapter 5.1 provides anticipated project impacts, and in conjunction with mitigation measures, the long-term impacts of the proposed project are not anticipated to negatively impact the habitat and/or functions found at the site. b) (i)(ii)(iii)the maximum height of the structure is proposed at the OHW elevation on the site in order to provide protection to the slope without interfering with the in -water habitat and the littoral drift and associated processes and functions on the beach. The failure of the current creosote pile bulkhead at the elevation near the MHHW demonstrates the need to move the structure to higher elevations in order to prevent waterward actions behind the structure.(iv)The new proposed rock wall material and the more landward position of the proposed bulkhead is proposed in order to provide a benefit to the landward protections and the environmental conditions as described in the alternatives analysis in Chapter 5.1. (v)This standard does not apply to the project as there is no restoration of shoreline ecological functions proposed by the soft -armoring, rather, the soft -armoring proposed is designed to protect the upslope structures. (vi)The project satisfies FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b) as described above. 5.3 Project Impacts In general, the proposed project attempts to protect upland structures and property use while incorporating low -impact shoreline stabilization measures to the most practicable extent possible. Additional geotechnical analysis and regulatory consultation has generated project revisions designed to avoid and minimize shoreline impacts further, while still allowing for protection of upland structures. Beach access and bank stabilization actions may have discountable impacts on native plant species. The stairwell is replacing an existing structure and will be supported by pin 1113.0001 Brunett Project Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants LLC 17 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 point support/ -anchor beams allowing vegetation to persist below the structure. The rock wall and bank support features will be at or -just below the "vegetation line and will be impacting very little if any of large vegetated slope. The location and design of the rock wall are consistent with the recommendations made in the WDFW Publication, Wlhite Paper - Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues (Thom and Williams, 2001). Intertidal habitat will be restored by locating the stabilization structure more landward than the existing bulkhead, and the structure will be exposed to less wave energy, thereby reducing the amount of impacts to sediments waterward of the structure. The use of sloping rock wall (Schembs, 2012 and Revised 2013), rather than the vertical creosote pile bulkhead will increase the wave absorption capabilities of the structure and improve potential localized habitat diversity for marine resources (Zabawa and Ostrom 1982, Thom et al. 1994a). In addition, soft stabilization using natural materials that deform and adjust over time to changing shoreline conditions, often cause minimal impacts to nearshore habitats (Cox et al. 1994, Zelo and Shipman 2000, Macdonald et al. 1994) and are anticipated to create minimal impacts to physical shoreline functions, such as littoral drift, sediment composition, and vegetative structure at the shoreline. Overall impacts, including mitigation measures, are anticipated to create benefits to shoreline habitat due to proposed project design along with the cleanup of existing debris. Mitigation of intertidal areas will impact sediments; however, BMPs will be implemented to reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. BMPs include conducting intertidal mitigation work during the fish work window, ensuring all construction equipment and materials are clean and the entire project area will be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. BMPs are further outlined in Chapter 6. For more details please see the project's TESC Plan and SWPPP. 5.3.1 Cumulative Impacts Consideration has been given to cumulative impacts of additional requests for like actions in the area. The Coastal Atlas Map (Figure 3)(Ecology, 2012), provides a visual representation of the basis for concluding that the potential cumulative impacts may be limited in scale. The project proposed at the site includes armoring approximately 33 27 percent of the shoreline at the OHW of the subject property (380 190 feet out of 720 feet total OHW length) according to specifications provided in the geotechnical report (Schembs, 2012 and Revised 2013). The rernaiflder An additional 220 linear feet of the shoreline bank is proposed protected through modem soft - armoring techniques, allowing movement of beach sediments with buffering effects provided by the large woody debris. Adjacent property to the west lacks the need for upland protections similar to the proposed project. The property to the east is located within the divergence zone and the beginning area of the small drift cell to eastward, if receiving similar protections of appreminwely fifty (59) percent 27 percent in length of hard armoring along the shoreline, the effects are anticipated to be minor with the remainder of the adjacent bluffs and shoreline bank areas available for sedimentation and buffering with woody debris along the remaining shoreline. Please refer to the revised geotechnical analysis for details (Schembs 2013). In addition, the proposed cleanup and beach restoration actions will provide an improvement in water quality by removing approximately 463 cubic feet of creosote -treated wood material and trash as well as open approximately 3,520 square feet of intertidal habitat otherwise obscured by existing structures and debris. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 18 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 1113.0001 Brunett Project Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants LLC 19 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 6. Recommendations/Habitat Management As discussed in Chapter 4.3, sensitive habitats located in the vicinity of the project include estuarine intertidal habitat area (WDFW, 2012). Federally listed species potentially found within the vicinity of the proposed project include marbled murrelet, Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU; Stellar sea - lion, eastern population; steelhead, Puget Sound DPS; bull trout; humpback whale, killer whale, Southern Resident DPS; bocaccio rockfish, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish. The project actions are consistent with the intent of the code designation in the Urban Conservancy area of City, of Federal Way. The project seeks to balance the protections of ecological functions on the shoreline as well as maintaining the water -oriented use established at the site. The project area contains several regulated features and habitat for sensitive fish and wildlife species. In order to protect the identified features and functions, the following recommendations should be implemented during project actions. 6.1 Construction Sequencing and Best Management Practices in the Project Area TESC measures consisting of silt fencing, and covering of stockpiles, should be installed and actively managed for the duration of the project. Particular care will be necessary along the shoreline buffer and bank slope areas in the northern portion of the subject property to ensure the area is not significantly disturbed. Silt fencing should remain in place until completion of construction activities and the site is properly stabilized. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept off the shoreline to the practicable extent possible, and the entire project area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All stabilization material should be sourced from onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on the construction barge surfaces wherever possible. Following completion of the site stabilization, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded wherever necessary and TESC measures will need to be removed. 6.2 Critical Areas and Buffer/Habitat Management Recommendations Habitat management practices for Critical Salmon Habitat Area (FWMC 15.05.040), on the subject property include the following recommendations: * Do not place clearing debris, waste, or trash within intertidal areas of the Puget Sound; Use only pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides approved by the U.S. EPA or Washington Department of Ecology within 100 feet of the Puget Sound, and only as necessary; • Where approved, herbicides should be applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the label. These items should also be stored as far as possible from the bank adjacent to the Puget Sound; 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 20 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 IJ • Avoid use of chemicals banned by the EPA in all areas (DDT; creosote; lindane; silvex; aldrin; dieldtin;' mirex; 2,4,5-T; Chlordane; kepone; pentachlorophenal (penta); toxaphenezax, et cetera); • Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMP's should be provided in the TESC Plan prior to project implementation; a Keep heavy equipment and vehicles out of areas below the OHW to the maximum extent feasible except when accessing the site and beach cleanup (mitigation) efforts; • Replant disturbed slopes as necessary with native species listed in Planting Plan, Appendix C. 1113.0001 Btunett Project Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants LLC 21 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Chapter 7. Conclusions All field inspections, OHW determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Fish & WilMe Habitat Assossment Re art prepared for the AtchbisbQQ Anmctt Retreat Center 4WQ-Sho eline Protection, and Access Repairs were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs, Railin Peterson, and Racheal Villa of Soundview Consultants LLc. Jeremy Downs is a Fisheries Biologist, Railin Peterson is a Environmental Scientist, and Racheal Villa is a Fisheries Biologist. Any deviations and/or altersaions of the proposed project and/or habitat management recommendations provided in this document must be approved by the aforementioned parties at Soundview Consultants LLC. Please see Appendix E for a description of professional qualifications. The content found in this document is current and accurate to the best of my knowledge as of the date signed below. August 2, 2012 and July 12, 2013 Racheal Villa Date Fisheries Biologist Soundview Consultants "r 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax racheal@soundviewconsultants.com 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 22 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 J Chapter 7. References Broderick. K. 2012. Broderick Architects stair plan for the ABRC, Federal Way. City of Federal Way Municipal Code, Title 15. http://www.codepubhshing.com/WA/FederalWay/ Envirovision, Herrera, and AHG 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and functions in Puget Sound. An Interim Guide. The Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. ht a: wdfw.wa. v h b ah ncarshgre interim uide october 2007 final draft, df FEMA 2000. Letter of Map Amendment for FEMA FIRM Map Panel Number 53033C1225F. February 22, 2000. Fisher and Valasquez. 2008. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species, Dungeness crab (CancermgUkr). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. NOAA 2010, National Marine Fisheries Website GIS mapping, Seattle, Washington ht weba s.nwfs . sa. ov ma A s m A s.'s . th= 9 &hei htY400 Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA. Ecology Publication # 08-06-001.\ Schembs. 2012. Geologic assessment report for the Archbishop of Seattle — Brunett Retreat Center, Federal Way, Washington. GeoResources LLC. Thom and Williams. 2001. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. April 17, 2001. Triad Associates, 2012. Site survey USACE, 2012. Elevations on Station Datum, National Ocean Service (NOAA). Tacoma, WA. Station ID: 9446484. Accessed from website: http:/ftides,andc=ents,ngaa.gov/&ta menu.shtml?stn=9446484%201acoma %20WA& e= Datums Washington State Department of Ecology website for Shoreline Management, 2012 hup://www.ca.wa.gov/prognmszs!ga/sma/]&ws rules/173-26/231 modifications-html Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2012a. Priority Habitats and Species Report accessed from website: hn://wdfw.w:a.gov/mapp:mg/12hs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2012b. Website for Bald Eagle Management & Protection in Washington State: ht wdf\v.v,a. ov c nsepvation bald eagle/inde-x.html 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & WiildhEc Habitat Assessment Report 23 August 2, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix A Methods and Tools Table A 1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report. Fprametel McEhod or 'ronl Weh$iEe G ilclCre nCr E Plant Names USDA Plant Database hh /1plants.nsda.govl Website Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey h% Ir /websrLFlsurvq_nreggsda. v Website: GIS data based upon: hool WebSoilSurvey = Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, And Washington State University, Agriculture Research Center. Washington, D.C. Threatened and Washington Natural hum://vnvw.dnr_wa,govlresearchsc Websites: Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data Endangered Heritage Program LF��£/tRSs/nnturalherirapeLTapes posted to website November 2010). Endangered, /amp nh,asnx and Species threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington huo:L/ww�vl.dnr.wa. /` n Lref State Department of Natural Resources, Washington desk/ lists/olanmxcolkir[g hrml Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Washington Priority hhite.1/Tdfw.wa.gov/habinhsuaee. Website: Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program Habitats and Species htm (Data Map produced 08/19/09). Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). NOAA fisheries species httn:LAvu[w.nwr.noaa,gov/ESA Websites Salmon -listing /Salmon Pouniat ions I lndex.efm list and maps and hL[p:LLU]yw.IVn6,1noiap,eQyl rn Isn ecies USFWS species lists by h[rp;llwww.ftiveivltw snvafwols Website c/Sf3 I.'tsr/endangrcred 5peeiex.asn County Species of Local WDFW GIS Data hE;p;�/�w.wgg; vJ Ima�,pjpglsal Websites nn and hap, IAxlfw.wn-gov Importance .manninalnhs Report Federal Way Municipal v c�i4x Federal Way Municipal Code Tide 15 Preparation Code 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report July 20, 2012, Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix B Background Information This appendix includes a WDFW PHS data map with data list (B1),King County Topographic Map (B2), NRCS Soil Map (H3), National Wetlands Inventory Map (B4), King County Local Data Map (B5), Flood and Storm Water for King County (B6), WDFW Salmonid Distribution Map (Coho Salmon (B7), City of Federal Way Restoration Opportunities Map (B8). 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Kx— �wcj•�TGI, i �;r WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT SOUICEOATASEf_ PHSPkmPuWie QueryUX P17D717130703 REPORT GATE 07117=21-08 PM :.meren rorr.'- ..-- ��. rar. -• Pi�o:yti.i -�---- +W�r.cr Freya=�r.=-. - ..c.s�kan� c+.m UXr+t• ^--. r.rrst}W. "aae Si.^aa .. .Mrs hT�J ibr Naen4-++{r1R1: !'HS 1py 5t�.� ?lard ':u+r�e !Ia+ 5►7*1'�[ar�cc�[L.Yi.'a E�i.Lt4�'i[Tii!'R11ChL rL'.{ _.-.Ayy 3-t�nrs� -.. HA KA NU POLY AWft ebfir WA h!b 1.YnYn ece b PHS Lis :4 1113.0001 Brunett Project Combined Fish & VUrldhfe Habitat Assessment Report - S rf us h :nd'Ni]6i Sen oe AS MAPPED Pdrg- Soundview Consultants LLC August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix B2. King County Topographic Map of Project Area �' i irilJrjk l `� f I fi ; i `.5 .1 1 1 i it .•-" j I PR Il � I`[`E V .,j'.. Le 1 1 t i S 'SA: 1113.0001 Brunett Project Combined Fish &c Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 780 w 12 Soundview Consultants LLC August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Sag o Appendix B2. King County Topographic Map of Project Area 1113,0001 Brunett Project SoundviewConsultants LLC Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 tlPPCIIU12L 17J. m e .SS.ZZ .ZZL .6S RZ .ZZL n '1 1 .f 1NJLX%-J JVll LYl , rl h �� � �' �- f ftr• � Jr 1wL�4% f X` T •k y17 ■ �. 4 ti ? T� r .'�..1�`- � lam• .+.. 2. • ' ` '- .+�.+t ram.: �,�� t �'. S iL _� a l � s•a� 3� �,._,.� ecv o-.rc cnc:•.es rmlo-cs ea.�rec oar:vC: oeeltc: 77LLr� carves to � Nag 1s.Zz .M � 0 ";a y� n 'C 4 8 n L N $ g O aY 2U ZQ _65.0 .ZZL [j, y2 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & WildLife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 J Appendix B4. National Wetlands Inventory Map d i N 2 m r m o N _ N O C m V C G A b E o o W A N m m i3 � .:c H .� � (� U. U. W W lL J SY O = LL , , CL - 1. 1113.0001 Brunett Project Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants LLC August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 J Appendix B5. Mng County Local Data Ma co X (L (U rA M m m —3 W ma jCO 0 T C m g C L V^` Q of T' = N 00 •� C� ' m s (D _ tp U (D W re ; CL S OI I O _s 13 "y 4s � Tj 1 �� � _� �� �.d•• ..-_ . ' � c� �� ! "-- .- to :7 yip --�d7" ` - ±± � ���� °'l •_ 'i�- � � rar•' I a 3 �; f _Yt—, � I 47 ~ SITE c3 t Ilk 1 l 13.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & WildliFe Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix B6. Flood and Storm Water for King County j 0. v x y' J � O �{ O V n ry }; o� 3AY QL[Y w Y D J D �i a SITE a ■ � 'vyx�• �s ���a s Q V Jig, o M.S:AY NIBr �4 ASS d ��1.[r � v i Y o�c s xx q! 3 ors anY NHS NM-d KM v 0463Ayall; v w by? � a l 113.0001 Brunets Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Dish & Wild[iife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix B7. WDFW Salmonid Distribution Map (coho salmon) W G iS o 0 �. tO7 O to 6 m 0 J � q LLGG1 q4 Y O.O 6S 6G L6 2 N i V H Cv a R q$g� i. vim, < -� ' � •'s ' to S �r _ -I.; ay MS o 0 a R rf u n u g 6 '• � � _' • 1• Ir�... _ Y p � S jO � � S N 1� 110.0001 Btunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix B8. City of Federal Way Restoration Opportunities Map N > c G a% a O1 " m° m r m y s = Q �' 3 u 4 a �' e e c $ 8 .r a.. O ❑. a G W -4 G o O F •� A C [0 'a 0 01-- 'C1. CO CO me—C�$� ts$ng ®� Sc eMOMe 0 a s � 8 m a L N.��,Jm�c--J o c E m a Q2 mm.mam m m S w Q fA N�a. aaQd - u .Og Cl jR. a NR V V a7 a. D,.,=r, �a �■ 8 r a O O C r � M U CD-w:am0map00m 0 O.Y m� m S 0 a 0�;eW e�s$�¢G �aC200O 000000000eaGX!. M1 �Q•tstiasa�ra t, n IM41 l .L.0 G C'kL INN, SITE 1113.0001 Brunett Project Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report R Soundview Consultants LLC August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 20B Appendix C - Plan Sheets (Revised by Applicant) This Appendix includes the project plan sheets showing the locations existing physical features of the site, and proposed site development actions. Project site plan map revisions are being completed by the Applicant and Will accompany the documentation. 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 Appendix D Qualifications Teretny Downs Jeremy Downs is a Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner at Soundview Consultants LLC. He has professional training and extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments; underwater and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987. Jeremy earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis. In addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He also holds graduate -level professional certifications in various advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San Francisco State University, and he has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the University of California Extension. Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the Washington Department of Transportation. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. Railin Peterson Railin Peterson is a professional Environmental Scientist with background in both fresh water and marine ecology. She has experience in fisheries management, assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, conducting biological evaluations, documentation and coordination of ESA, MSA, and NEPA compliance efforts, NPDES compliance, GIS mapping and analysis, and regulatory coordination and permitting. Railin earned a Bachelor's of Science degree from the Evergreen State College, Olympia and post -graduate education in Marine and Environmental Affairs from the University of Washington, Seattle. In addition, she has received formal training in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NUTS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for Fisheries and Wildlife Biology Applications through the Northwest Environmental Training Center, and various NPDES Phase I and II stormwater monitoring and data analysis and regulatory subjects. For a list of representative projects, please contact her at Soundview Consultants LLC .. Racheal Villa Racheal Villa is a Fisheries Biologist at Soundview Consultants LLC. She is a professional fisheries biologist with a diverse background in both fresh water and marine ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments. Racheal earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the University of Washington, Seattle, with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life history; restoration of fish communities and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution; and biomonitoring and assessment. In addition, she has received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark, the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, 1113.0001 Brunett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER - VICINITY MAP PARCEL A DESCRIPTION: PARCEL B DESCRIPTION PARCEL NUMBER: 1121039010 PARCEL NUMBER: 1121039029 SITE ADDRESS: 47W SW DASH POINT ROAD SITE ADDRESS: S\\%DASH POINT ROAD I-EDI' ZAI. WAY, WA 98023 FEDER111, WAY. WA 98011 LOT AREA: I,L19,053 SF (25.7 ACRES) LOT AREA: 441,888 SF (10.1 ACRES) ZONING: SUBURBAN I{5TAT1_:S (SF.) ZONING: SUBURBAN ESTATES (SE) SHORELINE SHORELINE DESIGNATION: URBAN CONSERVANCY DESIGNATION: URBAN CONSERVANCY LEGAL DESCRIPTION. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PCL A FEDERAL WAY BLA HBLA 01-101539 REC #2001071 1900004 SD PCL 13 FEDERAL WAY BLA # BLA 01-101539 REC N20010711900004 SD BLA BEING WLY BLA BEING WLY 1!2 GL 3 TGW POR SW 114 STR 11-21-3 LY NELY lit GL 3 TGW POR SW 114 S'ER 11-21-3 LY NELY NIARINE VIEW DR TGW TD LDS ADJ MARINE VIEW DR TGW TD LDS AD) APPLICANT: ED FOSTER (206) 202-4851 SOURCES: • KING COUNTY GIS • BING ADTACENT OWNERSHIP ADJACENT OWNERS: 1) BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 12) COCHRAN THERESA H 2) ROSS MARK A &JANET 1 13) HEGEL TAMARA & ANTHONY 3) PEREZ JOSS M 14) EMLEN JOHN M & URSULA H FAUST 4) GO.RBUN ANATOLIY & TAYA 1_S) DRAKE SIMON & AIMEE 5) ROBERTS JACK & ROBERTS JEAN 16) MAGARRELL DAVID 6) STIHARI IVAN 17) CHALFIN PATRICK & AKAKA SHERY 7) CCAS PROPERTY & CONST 18) GRAVES DONALD W & CHRISTINE M 8) CAHILL RODERICK T JR 19) JONES EDWARD L & GAIL ANN 9) JAEGER JAMES CHRISTIAN 20) IDE GARY V & ELIZABETH A 10) CONTRATTO RONALD 21) TURNEY NATALIE LYNN 11) WRIGHT R I 22) 10NASSON CARL F l:ncironnuntal, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consultants 2907 I ]arbor-,,icW Drive Office 253.514.8952 Gig I Iarbor, WiN 98335 Fax 253.514.8954 11 i, a . 3 0 a d �l (� i _ rc - . u 1, t � ,_ t 1 . = o m ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER 4700 DASH POINT ROAD FEDERALWAY, WASHINGTON 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS 1121039010 & 1121039029 THE N'%V X OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DATE: 7/31 /2012 joB: 1113.0001 BY: K 4 SCALE: N /A SHEET 1 OF 4— 487H AVE SW 0 75 150 300 ram_ - r� GRAPHIC SCALE I*-Iw n > a w O C r+ — N ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER 4700 DASH POINT ROAD FEDERAL. WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 DING COUNT' PARCEI. NUIMBERS 1121039010 & 112I039029 THE NW a OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 03E, W.M. SOUJZCIv1F-w COalUfta12t �r Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consultants 2907 I-IarUorview Drive Office 253.514.8952 Gig I Iarbor, \\/A 98335 Fax 253514.8954 n n u s o u r_ ti a- i s u' o rz s u I E a a! s e m SOURCES: • BODERICK ARCHITECTS ■ TRIAD ASSOCIATES • GEORESOURCES • GOOGLE EARTH Annr rrerrr- ED POSTER (206) 202-4851 ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER - EXISTING CONDITIONS I `.LI t1 ATION D-CI A V A D 29 (1-l) \11111K i.49 118 \illll 4 61 140i ?BJ.P -632 0 g N D (((L VEGI2ATED ARI'_\ .11H1\' (10.8 PI) CONIFER'PRE[--, DECIDUOUS l-RBE GENERAL NOTES: 1. I TPI_,\ND AREA NOT SURVEYI-3) 3. SLbPIi VE(;I FATI:I)wil It NATIVESPECIES 1%,CLUDING IJC)UGIrLS FIR, WE.MiRN I ENILOCK• BIG IJ^AF \I,APLE AND RED AIDEA O\'liR BI-•ACED HA7.EI \UT, OCJiAN5PRA1-. S\C'OKD FERN, FrREWEI D,'111[NIB LEW RRY• $;\ LAI- AND ASSORTED GRASSES. INVASIVE PIrINT SPECIES INCLUDE ENGLISH IVY. TREE LABELS: TRia: # 1 A #2 = 10" 0RN,0U:_WAI. 'rREF. # 3 = 14" CEDAR GROUP #I: (3) 12"-14" I11auLOCKS (;) 12"-IR" i9 RS GROUP #'' (3) 10"--12"Ill-J�ILOCKS GROUP #3 (_r 14"46" FIRS (5) 11r-16" IIEXII.CX:KS GROUP #4 (<)) 10"-20" 11E6IL0(:KS GROUP #5 (I) IB"FIR (6) 12"-16" 1trIMIJJCKS 0 40 80 160 GRAPHIC SCALE C-aky APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF RECENT SLI MHW (1D.93)_- MHHW SErdEHAR VJW Ls 21402 11AMACE>< (TO BE 13' BIA PLES f 7oP E1Ev�7I.6 I w STAOnw Pets OwATMG(Ef tom) �. 2W RUBBER TRES 'y SLOPE VEGETATED ��. (SEE NOTE 3) Ila 50 FYM4 WWWR RETAIN WALL 15' .0 SLOPE VEGETATED" Imo' sT"FL, (SEE NOTE 3) 216M TWBER �� Q RETAIN WALL \� TOP OF 200 FT SOURCE: ■ BODERICK ARCHITECTS • TRIAD ASSOCIATES ■ GOOGLE EARTH er Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consultants 2907 Harborvicw lltivc Office 253.514.8952 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Fax 253.514.8954 n n• iv s o u a J v( e m e u is _ u r t c o t s r.. f — r I I r D iRFS 75'3 TALL f ti m SET W" wpw � r4@ SET REHAB W%W I!j IS :11402 1 --- ic- �a g3 VEGETATED NOTE 3) PN01-8 30 W ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER 4700 DASH POINT ROAD FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NERS 1121039010 & 1121039029 THE NW % OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DATE: 7/31 /2012 joB: 1113.0001 BY: KM SCALE: 1" = 800'' SHEET 3 Of' T Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consultants 2907 Harborvicw lltivc Office 253.514.8952 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Fax 253.514.8954 n n• iv s o u a J v( e m e u is _ u r t c o t s r.. f — r I I r D iRFS 75'3 TALL f ti m SET W" wpw � r4@ SET REHAB W%W I!j IS :11402 1 --- ic- �a g3 VEGETATED NOTE 3) PN01-8 30 W ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER 4700 DASH POINT ROAD FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NERS 1121039010 & 1121039029 THE NW % OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DATE: 7/31 /2012 joB: 1113.0001 BY: KM SCALE: 1" = 800'' SHEET 3 Of' T and Biological Assessment Preparation For Transportation Projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries Biologist. 1113.0001 Burnett Project Soundview Consultants LLC Combined Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report August 2, 2012-Revised July 12, 2013 LANDAU ASSOCIATES November 13, 2013 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 Attn: Janet Shull RE: REVISED GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT RETREAT CENTER PROPOSED SHORELINE BULKIII AD AND STAIRWAY RESTORATION FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Shull: In accordance with your request, this letter provides geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following document was provided for our review: 9 Updated Geologic Hazard Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration; 4700 SW Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington, prepared for the Archdiocese of Seattle by GeoResources, Inc., revision dated September 2, 2013. We understand that the existing beach access stairs were damaged as a result of slope movements caused by failure of the timber pile bulkhead during significant storm events during the winter of 2011/2012. The revised September 2, 2013 GeoResources report recommends reconstructing the damaged portion of the stairway to the east and constructing 190 feet (ft) of new hard armoring (rock bulkhead) extending from the west property line to protect the new stairway and the remaining portion of the existing stairway. An additional 220 ft of soft armoring, extending eastward from the rock bulkhead, is recommended to mitigate wave and tidal erosion below the portion of the bluff downslope of the fire lane. COMMENTS The revised September 2, 2013 GeoResources report discusses the rationale for the proposed hard armoring and soft armoring by section starting at the west property line. Their discussion rationale is summarized below. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • TRILRIES • SPOKANE • PORTLAND Sta. 0+00 to 0+25 According to GeoResources, this section of the shoreline is unprotected. Wave and tidal erosion has resulted in toe erosion and bluff regression that has encroached to within a few feet of the upper, elevated portion of the existing stairway. Without toe protection, GeoResources states that ongoing erosion and bluff regression will undermine the stairway within the next 3 years. Sta. 0+25 to 0+68, 0+68 to 0+80, 0+80 to 1+25 According to GeoResources, these sections of shoreline include the old timber bulkhead (Sta. 0+25 to 0+68), a rubber -tire bulkhead where the existing stairs land on the beach (Sta. 0+68 to 0+80), and where the remnants of the old timber barge are located (Sta. 0+80 to 1+25). These sections of the rock bulkhead are intended to protect the new stairs. Without toe protection, GeoResources states that realigned stairway is at risk of failure and undermining within the next 3 years. Sta. 1+25 to 1+90 GeoResources states that this section of shoreline is located downslope of the upper trail and is currently unprotected with numerous areas where the toe of the bluff is being scoured and over steepened. They further state that impacts of a northerly winter storm during a high or king tide would result in a series of failures along this stretch of shoreline. They do not state if the stairs are at risk within 3 years. From the east end of the hard armoring (Sta. 1+90), GeoResources recommends constructing a soft shore stabilization system approximately 220 ft in length. They state that the system will not entirely stop toe erosion, but will greatly reduce the rate of erosion, thereby, protecting the fire lane at the top of the slope. No assessment of the risk of damage to the fire lane as a result of shoreline erosion is provided. Our comments for each section discussed above are provided in the following paragraphs. Though we do not disagree with GeoResources' assessment that without protection, erosion of the toe of the bluff between Sta. 0+00 to 0+25 will present a clear and imminent threat to the upper, elevated portion of the existing stairway within 3 years (FWRC 15.05.050.1.a.iii), our concern is that the abrupt change from hard armoring to no armoring will cause accelerated erosion west of the bulkhead, adversely impacting the adjacent property, which is not allowed by FWRC 15.05.050.1.a.vii. GeoResources recommends that the west end of the bulkhead be angled into the adjacent bluff to prevent scour and additional erosion on the adjacent parcel, though no detail is provided as to how this is to be accomplished. In our opinion, even with the bulkhead angled into the bluff, wave action will likely eventually remove the soil in front of the western end of the bulkhead resulting in an abrupt change in the 11/13/13 YA236\062.020\RWBRC geotech review Itrcomm rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 shoreline condition and increased erosion west of the bulkhead and adversely impacting the adjacent property. To address the abrupt transition at the western end of the proposed bulkhead, the upper portion of the stairway could be relocated eastward such the entire stairway extends downslope generally perpendicular to the slope gradient. Though this would result in additional disturbance to the slope, the disturbance can easily be mitigated by re-establishing vegetation. With the stairway relocated, the portion of hard armoring from Sta. 0+00 to 0+25 could be eliminated. We generally agree with GeoResources assessment for the need of hard armoring of the shoreline between Sta. 0+25 and 1+25 to protect the new stairs, though with realignment of the stairs as discussed above, the extent of the hard armoring could be reduced. Without protection, erosion of the toe of the bluff will present a clear and imminent threat to the proposed realigned stairway within 3 years. Therefore, hard armoring of the shoreline is allowed per FWRC 15.05.050.1.a.iii. To provide a transition from the hard armoring to no armoring, soft armoring should be constructed westward from Sta. 0+25. The amount of soft armoring should be the minimum amount necessary to provide a transition from hard armoring to no armoring to minimize impacts to the adjacent property. We disagree with GeoResources assessment for the need of hard armoring between Sta. 1+25 and 1+90. Though a portion of the upper trail is located directly upslope of this section, it is unlikely that erosion of the toe of the bluff will present a clear and imminent threat to that portion of the trail within 3 years. Therefore, it is our opinion that this section does not meet the criteria of FWRC 15.05.050.1.a.iii. Soft armoring should be constructed of the east Sta. 1+25 to provide a transition from the hard armoring to no armoring. The amount of soft armoring should be the minimum amount necessary to provide a transition from hard armoring to no armoring. In our opinion, GeoResources does not demonstrate that erosion of the toe of the bluff east of Sta. 1+90 presents a threat to the fire lane. They state that the 220 ft of soft shore stabilization will not completely stop the toe erosion, but greatly reduce the rate of erosion. Since there is no demonstrated benefit, we recommend that the soft armoring of the shoreline not be allowed. The following presents comments regarding recommendations provided by GeoResources for construction of the hard and soft armoring: • On page 13 of the revised September 2, 2013 report, GeoResources recommends a minimum 18 inches of embedment of the bottom course of rocks. They indicate that the depth of embedment should be based on scour. Is 18 inches sufficient to protect the base of the bulkhead from undermining by scour? We recommend that GeoResources evaluate the potential scour depth and provide a minimum embedment depth based on the scour analysis. • hi their discussion of the FWRC under item viii on page 11 of the revised September 2, 2013 report, GeoResources recommends placing a geotextile fabric behind the hard armoring. The geotextile fabric is also shown on Figure 8. No specification for the type of geotextile is 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\RMRC geotech review @rcomm rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3 provided in the report or on Figure 8. We recommend that GeoResources provide a geotextile specification. ■ On Page 13 of the of the revised September 2, 2013 report, GeoResources recommends using ballast rock for free draining backfill. Figure 8 recommends using gravel Backfill for Walls for free draining backfill. Figure 8 should be revised to be consistent with the text of the report. • On Page 14 of the revised September 2, 2013 report, GeoResources states a perforated pipe is not needed behind the rock bulkhead, though a drain is shown on Figure 8. Figure 8 should be revised to be consistent with the text of the report. • On Page 14, the section on Soft Shore Stabilization incorrectly references Figure 9 as a typical detail for a rock bulkhead. Is Figure 8 shows a 2H:1 V finished slope in front of the rock bulkhead. This should be removed from the figure. • Figure 8 shows a minimum 12-inch-thick crushed rock pad beneath the rock bulkhead. The pad is 1 ft, 4 inches in length (lower left corner) which is less than the width of the base rock (48 to 54 inches). Is the crushed rock pad necessary? If not, it should be deleted for the drawing. • On Figure 9, no detail is provided on how to connect the logs to the anchors. GeoResources should provide a detail showing how the logs are to be connected to the anchors. • Figure 9 shows minimum 18-inch diameter buried rocks between each anchored log. Is an 18-inch rock sufficient to resistance movement on the beach due to wave action? How deep should the rocks be buried? Is there an upper limit to the rock size? GeoResources should provide additional information regarding the proposed buried rocks. We trust this letter provides the necessary information to evaluate the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City of Federal Way with this project. Please call if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. LANDAU ASSOC'. Edward J. Principal EJIVjrc 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\RWBRC geotech review Itroomm_rev.docx t.ANDAu ASSOCIATES 4 LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM W/RcI•_kIW- TO: Janet Shull, City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development FROM: Theresa Turpin, AICP DATE: October 9, 2013 revised November 13, 2013 RE: REVISED - THIRD -PARTY REVIEW OF THE PALISADES (ARCHBISHOP BRUNETT) RETREAT CENTER BULICMAD AND STAIR REPLACEMENT FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This revised review is for the shoreline improvements proposed at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way, Washington. As part of this review and as requested by the client, a separate letter which is attached to this document, was prepared by Edward Heavey, P.E., a licensed geotechnical engineer, providing additional geotechnical review on the revised proposal (geotechnical review). These activities will occur within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The required shoreline permit approvals from the City of Federal Way are: • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit — To replace a 45 foot (ft) wood/creosote bulkhead (hard armoring) with a new rock bulkhead of 190 ft in length (45 ft would constitute replacement, 145 ft is considered new bulkhead). — Construction work will most likely require dredge/fill waterward of Ordinary High Water (OHW) along some areas of the shoreline; the dredge/fill work is part of the Conditional Use Permit. Shoreline Variance — To allow the rock bulkhead to exceed the bulkhead height requirement of the allowed 1 ft above Mean Higher High Water (MHHW). — To allow those sections of the hard armoring that may extend waterward of OHW, a location variance is requested for the 190 ft of hard armoring. • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Construct new soft shore stabilization of 220 ft in length — Repair and replace a portion of the existing stairs damaged in recent storm events; the stairway location will have a minor relocation due to the recent slide. Documents provided for the review of the project proposal were: 1. Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair, prepared by Yeager Associates, August 2012 (Yeager Associates report). Revised July 2013. 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 9 fax (253) 926-2531 9 www.landauinc.com 2. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs, prepared by Soundview Consultants, August 2012 (Soundview Consultants report) and Joint Aquatics Resource Permit Application (JARPA). Revised July 2013. 3. Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration, prepared by GeoResources, July 2012. (GeoResources report). Revised July 2013. 4. Email communication from David Pater and Hugh Shipman of Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to the City of Federal Way on June 7, 2013. The reports were reviewed for conformance with the provisions of the following Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 15, "Shoreline Management": • Section 15.05.040, "General Development Standards" + Section 15.05.050(1), "Shoreline Modifications" for the proposed bulkhead • Section 15.05.160, "Shoreline Variance" for the additional height of the proposed bulkhead • Section 15.05.170, "Shoreline Conditional Use Permits" for the project being consistent with the required criteria. Additional information on Federal Way Shorelines was obtained from the Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson 2007). This document was prepared as part of the Shoreline Master Program process. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ADJACENT LAND USE The ABRC property is located on approximately 36 acres west of Dumas Bay on Puget Sound in Federal Way, Washington and is used as a church, retreat center, and for training and seminars. The site address is 4700 Dash Point Road, Federal Way, Washington. The King County parcel numbers are 112103-9010 and 112103-9029. The zoning for the site is Suburban Estates (Low Density Residential 1 DU/5 acres) and those areas within 200 ft of the ordinary high water (OHW) are designated as Shoreline - Urban Conservancy. The site is surrounded by mostly single family dwellings and the property west of the site is owned by the Boy Scouts of America. The main ABRC structures are all outside the Urban Conservancy shoreline district and have been in place for over 50 years. The main structure, a retreat center, is set back about 75 ft from the top of the slope and an existing fire lane is between the retreat center and the top of the slope. According to the 2012 GeoResources report, page 6, the fire lane is setback about 140 ft from the limits of a historic slope failure and is approximately 15 ft from the top of the slope. A trail and stairway lead to the beach from the top of the slope. The stairs at the base of the slope are unsupported due to the recent slide. Beyond the slide area the shoreline bank is unarmored, vegetated, and from observations from the 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 site visit (November 2, 2012), the shoreline is in a natural state. The site's shoreline extends over 700 ft along a predominantly north facing slope. Information from the provided reports indicate the OHW was determined to be at elevation 12.4 ft, with the MHHW at elevation 11.8 ft and the maximum observed high tide elevation 14.6 ft (Section 2.4 Soundview Consultants report). The property and surrounding area is described in the Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson 2007). The ABRC is west of Dumas Bay, and east of Dash Point State Park. Based on the report, the ABRC is in an area called Puget Sound West. Page 21 of the report provides background material on armoring of steep slopes in Puget Sound and Federal Way: "Of all the impacts of shore armoring in the Puget Sound area, sediment impoundment is probably the most significant negative impact (PSAT 2003, Pilkey 1988). Structures such as bulkheads, if functioning correctly, "lock up" bluff material that would otherwise be supplied to the shore drift system. This results in a decrease in the quantity of drift sediment available for maintenance of down -drift beaches. The negative impact of sediment impoundment is most pronounced when armoring occurs along a feeder bluff with a high sediment yield such as the bluffs approximately one-half mile east of Adelaide and in the western portion of the study area, just east of Dash Point State Park (Johannessen et al 2005, Macdonald et al. 1994). Additionally, the extent of cumulative impacts from several long runs of bulkheads is a subject of great debate in the coastal research and management communities. A comparison of current and historical bluff conditions in King County documented that prior to modifications 49.5 percent of Federal Way shores were comprised offeeder bluffs (sediment sources). When compared with current conditions (3 7percent), this represents a 25.2 percent loss of the total historic sediment sources in the Federal Way nearshore (Johannessen et al., 2005). As the bluffs in the study area continue to gradually recede, there will likely be an increasing desire for homeowners to build bulkheads. This would lead to further sediment impoundment and further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches would become "starved, " resulting in a reduction of the beach width and habitat degradation (Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse -grained (Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This would likely negatively impact forage fish spawning and other habitat values of county beaches (Rice 2006)." Page 72 of the same report, adds discussion including the project proposal area: "Several feeder bluffs in Puget Sound West were identified for conservation. These include all mapped feeder bluffs in Dash Point State Park, and most of the feeder bluffs mapped along the north and northwestern sides of the headlands just west of Dumas Bay Park". 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 73): The following mitigation recommendations are made in the ESA Adolfson report (pages 72 and "Puget Sound West: ■ Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Information from the ESA Adolfson report indicates the proposed project area is along a feeder bluff in Puget Sound West and recommends conserving the unarmored shorelines in the proposed project vicinity. The project proposal is for the repair and/or replacement of the stairway and former bulkhead located on the property within the shoreline district. FWRC designates all saltwater shorelines within the City of Federal Way as critical habitat for salmonids. The project proposal area is within the shoreline and therefore, within critical habitat for salmonids. The Geologic Hazards Assessment report prepared by GeoResources (2012) states that based on their site observations and evaluation, a landslide hazard, erosion hazard area, and steep slopes areas exist on or within 25 ft of the site (pages 5,6). The 2012 Geologic Hazards Assessment report on page 6 states the project proposal is not within a seismic hazard area. NEED FOR THE PROJECT The beach access stairway has been destabilized by landslide activity and the loss of the existing 45 ft bulkhead. The central portion of the shoreline bank has slumped, allowing tall trees to fall onto the beach. Currently, the existing bulkhead is located at a lower elevation than the OHW elevation and therefore, is not providing protection at the toe of the slope. This has caused creosote treated pilings to fail and move apart from each other allowing high tidal and wave action to erode material from behind the bulkhead. This tidal and wave action has caused failure of the lower portion of the stairway. The project, as proposed, is to provide a combination of hard and soft armoring to protect the site. The proposed improvements (Yeager Associates 2012) are intended to: 1. Maintain the water -enjoyment use of the property 2. Provide safe beach access 3. Stabilize the steep slope and soft sediments near the stairway to maintain stairway stability in the future 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 4. Provide additional protection to upslope facilities by stabilizing the remainder of the shoreline 5. Protect existing beach habitat and critical environmental processes to the maximum extent possible while fulfilling the need for the project 6. Restore compromised intertidal habitat by removing debris, such as the creosote pile bulkhead. SHORELINE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS Project Description The site was established in 1956 and according to the Yelp, Inc. website (2012) the main structure celebrated 50 years of service in 2007. The previous bulkhead which was 45 ft in length and 14.8 ft in elevation (page 4, Soundview Consultants report 2012) recently failed. It is unclear how long the stairs and bulkhead were in place prior to failing. The project proposal is to reconfigure and replace the stairs and provide shoreline stabilization by using a combination of hard and soft armoring to provide beach access. The applicant is proposing to increase both the length and height of the former bulkhead. The previous bulkhead length was approximately 45 ft and covered approximately 7 percent of the site. The project proposal is providing 410 ft of hard and soft armoring; therefore, the project proposal is providing shoreline stabilization for approximately 57 percent of this undeveloped shoreline. Hard armoring is proposed to extend 190 ft along the shoreline at elevation 16.4 ft, adding an additional 145 ft of hard armoring in length from the previously existing bulkhead. Soft armoring is proposed for the remaining 220 ft of vegetated shoreline area. The project hard armors 26 percent of the shoreline and soft armors 31 percent of currently vegetated shoreline. The project proposal, as presented in all of the reports, will add 1.6 ft in height above the previously existing bulkhead. The height of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (Soundview Consultants 2012). The 2012 GeoResources report, page 8, recommends the hard armoring to extend 4 ft above OHW or elevation 16.4 ft. The regulatory requirements allowing rock bulkheads state the height cannot be higher than 1 ft above the MHHW elevation (11.8 ft), or a maximum of elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed bulkhead height is proposed to be 16.4 ft, which is 3.6 ft higher than what is allowed under the FWRC. FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE ANALYSIS Applicable Regulations of the FWRC are 15.05.040; 15.05.050; 15.05.160; and 15.05.170. In the reports prepared for the ABRC, the consultants have provided a review of the project proposal in relation to portions of the FWRC and the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The revised project is 11/13/13 Y:\236\062020\R\ABRC Shveline reNew 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 5 providing armoring of a natural shoreline. Therefore, to fully discuss the proposed project, this document addresses each section of the related FWRC and all applicable sections of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. 15.05.040 General development standards The following general development standards apply to all uses and activities in all shoreline environments: (1) Impact mitigation. (a) To the extent the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (FWRC 14.05.010 and Chapter 197-11 WAC). Mitigation for adverse impacts to shoreline functions will be triggered during the SEPA review, shoreline land use permit process, or exemption approval process. The project proposal incorporates mitigation measures (page 5 and Appendix B7 of the Soundview Consultants report) by providing beach cleanup, removal of creosote pilings, and the remnants of an old barge left on the beach. (b) Where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of priority. (i) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Repairing the stairs and replacing the previous 45-ft bulkhead requires some impact to maintain access to the beach; therefore, the impact cannot be completely avoided. (d) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; The project site is over 700 ft of mostly vegetated shoreline. The hard and soft armoring is shown as being installed landward of the OHW. Per the Ecology email and based on information in the 2013 Yeager Report, the placement of the hard armoring will be waterward of OHW in some places. Per the GeoResources report, page 6, the project proposal is replacing 45-ft of piling bulkhead with 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 feet of soft armoring. Per the reports, the armoring will provide protection of the shoreline area and is planned to extend past the fire lane that wraps around the complex, to the east portion of the site (2013 GeoResources page 2 and 3). The project proposal is to add 145 ft of hard armoring, is significantly less than the original proposal. However, the revised proposal increases the shoreline hard armoring over three times of what previously existed. To further protect the shoreline from erosion, GeoResources recommends providing up to 220 ft of soft armoring along the natural shoreline. Additionally, the Soundview Consultants report states the 220 ft of soft armoring is to provide future protection to the upland structures including the fire lane. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the ABRC is west of Dumas Bay and in an area called Puget Sound West. This report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. The revised 2013 proposal does minimize impacts. 11113/13 Y:\238\062.0201RWBRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 6 However, the Ecology comments point out the proposed soft armoring would not necessarily prevent continued slides on the upper slopes. (iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; The Soundview Consultants report Section 5.1.4 states the mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the following mitigation recommendations are made: "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Since the proposed mitigation complies with the last five bullets, the mitigation meets the requirement for repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; There is no discussion of ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the results of the armoring. Per the 2013 Soundview Consultants report, section 5.1.4, the mitigation will restore some of the natural sediment transport functions; however, there is still no discussion regarding ongoing monitoring or ongoing maintenance after the work is completed. (v) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and The mitigation (Soundview Consultants report, section 5.1.4 and Appendix C sheet 4 of 5) will enhance the shoreline area and environment by removing creosote pilings, and debris embedded in the beach including tires and decaying barge, to provide compensation. (vi) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. The report provides for best management practices (SMPs) during project construction which should minimize construction impacts (2013 Soundview Consultants, Chapter 6); however, there is no ongoing monitoring of the shoreline impact proposed in the reports provided. The revised reports do not provide any discussion regarding ongoing monitoring or maintenance. (c) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. 11/13/13 YA238\062.020XR\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES According to the ESA Adolfson report, the following mitigation recommendations are made: "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles." Therefore, the proposed mitigation is tailored to specific recommendations for this shoreline. (d) Required mitigation shall not be in excess of that necessary to assure that proposed uses or development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Based on the proposed mitigation and the shoreline inventory and characterization (ESA Adolfson report) the project proposal mitigation is not in excess. However, due to the changing from 7 percent of armored shoreline to the proposed armoring of over 50 percent of a natural shoreline, the mitigation may not assure the proposed armoring results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The 2012 Soundview Consultants report, Section 5.1.4 states: "No net loss of ecological functions are anticipated. " The mitigation will restore some natural sediment transport functions. The 2012 GeoResources report, at the bottom of page 7 states, "The rock bulkhead will reduce erosion of the shoreline bluff toe of slope. " Reducing erosion constitutes a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Based on information from the ESA Adolfson report, the project proposal is located in an area where there are known feeder slopes and the recommendations include conserving these unarmored shoreline areas. The shoreline was formerly 7 percent armored. Restoring some sediment transport functions through mitigation may not fully compensate for the loss of material that will be created from hard and soft armoring over 50 percent of a vegetated shoreline. The proposed mitigation is not in excess of that necessary, but may not fully compensate for the loss of shoreline ecological functions. (e) Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the Shoreline Management Act. The mitigation action to remove beach debris does not have an adverse impact on other shoreline functions. (fi When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and are located in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation may be authorized if said mitigation occurs within the watershed and addresses limiting factors or 11/13/13 YA236\062.020\RMRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 8 identified critical needs for shoreline conservation based on watershed or comprehensive management plans. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms, or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The proposed mitigation is located in the immediate project proposal vicinity. (2) Vegetation conservation. Existing shoreline vegetation shall be preserved per development standards established for each shoreline environment designation. Shifting the stairway to avoid the recent slide area will result in some vegetation loss; however, that loss will be replanted thus, at the stairway vegetation removal is the minimum size necessary. The applicant has provided a planting plan for the site, including the hard and soft armoring areas. See Appendix C, sheet 5 of 5 in the Soundview Consultants report. (3) Water quality/stormwater. All activities and development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall incorporate water pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to water quality from construction activities as well as the needfor permanent stormwater managementfacilities in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of all applicable city and state regulations. The 2013 Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 6, page 20, provides recommendations for appropriate BMPs for construction of stormwater management. Per the 2013 GeoResources report, page 12, the proposed hard armoring is a rock wall with free -draining backdill material allowing water to flow off the rock wall. The project proposal will be constructed in a naturally vegetated area which currently allows for water to sheet flow off the slope to the beach. The stairway, like a trail or sidewalk, is a non -pollution generating surface, needle piling is proposed for the replacement which provides support with minimal disturbance; therefore, the project proposal will comply with all stormwater requirements. (4) Critical areas. Activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC, Critical Areas, and Chapter 15.15 FWRC, Flood Damage Prevention, for each area described below. (a) Any conflict between the standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 or 15.15 FWRC and the SMP shall be resolved in favor of the standard that is most protective of the shoreline ecological functions. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapters 15.10 and 15.15 FWRC, the following minimum requirements shall apply with regard to activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) Minimum setbacks from the OHWMestablished by this chapter shall be maintained in all cases unless a shoreline variance is granted. The proposed armoring is shown landward of OHW which would meet the setback as required by the shoreline code. However, the Ecology discussion and the 2013 Yeager report page 4 states the potential for portions of the hard armoring to be located waterward of OHW. It is understandable in this environment that it would be,challenging, if not impossible, based on the toe of slope and the OHW, to keep all construction of the hard armoring landward of OHW. Therefore, the fill required to support the base of the hard armoring should be considered as part of the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit along with a location variance (as addressed in the 2013 Yeager Report) to allow the hard armoring to be waterward of OHW. 11113/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES (ii) When FWRC 15.10 270 (Structures, improvements, and clearing and grading within regulated wetland buffers), subsections (5) Wetland Buffer Reduction and (6) Modification, are utilized for a project proposal, a shoreline variance permit is required if the overall proposed buffer width reduction exceeds 25 percent. According to the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no wetlands were observed in the project proposal area. (b) Geologically hazardous areas. Regulated geologically hazardous areas located in the shoreline jurisdiction include seismic hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slopes, and erosion hazard areas. If a geologically hazardous area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, and IV of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC, the following shall apply with regard to activities and development in geologically hazardous areas found within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) Creation of new lots shall be prohibited where development and use on new lots would cause a foreseeable risk from geological conditions during the life of the development. Per the 2013 GeoResources report, page 7, the project proposal is within a steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard area; however, no new lots will be created as part of the project proposal. (ii) New development that causes riskfrom geological conditions should not be allowed. The project proposal is to repair and maintain the stairs and to provide shoreline armoring. The project proposal is proposing a solution to protect the site from geologic conditions such as landslides. (iii) New development on sites with steep slopes and bluffs is required to be set back - sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the project as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. A geotechnical review has been completed for the project proposal and while all work is proposed landward of the OHW, this may not be physically possible due to site conditions; however, the proposal is providing the appropriate setback under the FWRC. (c) Streams and wetlands. If a stream or wetland is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I, II, III, V, and VI of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. As stated previously, per the Sound -view Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no wetlands or streams were observed in the project proposal area. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRCShcrelinereview2synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAuAssoCIATES 10 (d) Flood damage reduction. If an area of special flood hazard is located on or adjacent to a development site within shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC. All activities allowed within the special flood hazard area by the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC shall not result in a net loss of ecological function. The project proposal is in a Flood Hazard Area according to the Soundview Consultants report, section 4.5. (e) Critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. If a critical aquifer recharge area or wellheadprotection area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions ofArticles I, II, III, and VII of Chapter 15.10 FWRC. As stated previously in the Soundview Consultants report, section 2.3, the only critical areas observed were the Puget Sound shoreline, associated critical salmon habitat, and steep slopes. No other potentially regulated critical areas were observed on site or within 300 ft of the shoreline area; therefore, no Critical Aquifer Recharge areas were observed or known to be within the project proposal area. (5) Critical salmonid habitats. All salt water shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats. The project proposal is work along a saltwater shoreline which means it is within a critical salmonid habitat. Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the following development standards, in addition to those contained in other sections of this chapter: (a) Structures which prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead are prohibited. Fish bypass facilities shall allow the upstream migration of adult fish. Fish bypass facilities shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. Project proposal work will be landward of OHW or, if encroaching into the OHW, the hard armoring will be as close to the landward OHW as is physically possible without damaging the existing slope. Therefore, the project does not create structures that prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead. (b) Shoreline modification structures may intrude into critical salmonid habitats only where the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met. (i) An alternative alignment or location is not feasible; Since all saltwater shorelines are considered critical salmonid habitat, it is anticipated the interpretation of intruding into a critical salmonid habitat means work waterward of OHW. It would appear constructing the shoreline armoring landward of OHW or, if encroaching into the OHW, as close to the landward OHW as is physically possible based on site conditions, complies with this condition. (ii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; 11113/13 Y:\238\062.020\RWBRCShorelinerevew2synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAUAssocIATES 11 The project proposal is along the shoreline and the majority of inwater work proposed is the mitigation. Section 5.2, pages 14 and 15 of the 2013 Soundview Consultants report, states the minimum amount of hard armoring is being proposed to protect the existing uses. Based on Ecology comments and the 2013 Yeager Report, the proposed hard armoring will be located as close to the landward OHW as physically possible. According to all of the reports, the use of hard and soft armoring is designed to minimize impacts to the shoreline. However, based on the ESA Adolfson report, sections cited earlier in this document states: "...further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches would become "starved, " resulting in a reduction of the beach width and habitat degradation (Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse -grained (Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This would likely negatively impact forage fish spawning and other habitat values of county beaches (Rice 2006). " Based on the Landau Associates geotechnical review, page 3, hard armoring could be reduced between Stations (Sta.) 0+00 to 0+25 and between 1+25 and 1+90. Therefore, the project may not be designed to fully minimize impacts on the environment. (iii) If the project will create unavoidable adverse impacts, the impacts are mitigated by creating in -kind replacement habitat near the project. Where in -kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute; Per the Soundview Consultants report, the project proposal inwater work is the mitigation. This includes removing creosote pilings, a decaying barge structure, and other debris on the beach. It is anticipated this work will also restore some of the natural sediment transport functions. The mitigation does rehabilitate degraded habitat. (iv) The project satisfies all provisions of FWRC 15.05.050, Shoreline modifications Analysis of FWRC 15.05.050 is below. Based on the Landau Associates geotechnical review of the site, the proposal does not meet all of the criteria in 15.0.050; specifically 15.05.0501. a. iii and vii. 15.05.050 General development standards (1)Shoreline stabilization may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment. Hard armoring (e.g., bulkheads and riprap) is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit in the urban conservancy environment. Soft -shore stabilization may be permitted in the urban conservancy environment. Shoreline stabilization proposals shall address the following: (a) Shoreline stabilization, including bulkheads, shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the city's shorelines. In order for shoreline stabilization to be permitted the city must find that. (i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified professional, that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and the urgency associated with the specific situation; and 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm—rev.d= LANDAU AssocIATES 12 The applicant has provided a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional (2013 GeoResources). Page 9 of this report provides information based on their review of available shoreline photographs and observations, they estimate the rate of erosion to be 1 to 2 inches per year. Due to past slope failures, the estimate is 1 to 3 ft every 10 to 15 years. Alternatives evaluated in all of the reports included the no action alternative, soft armoring alternative, hard armoring alternative, and a combination of soft and hard armoring on the shoreline. (ii) Soft -shore stabilization alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization, gravel berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioritized over structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" effective alternative shall be utilized, and The only soft shore stabilization technique proposed is anchoring large woody debris with large boulders. The soft armoring, as proposed, does incorporate native vegetation. This is shown on the mitigation plan, Appendix C, sheet 4 of 5 in the 2012 Soundview Consultants report. NOTE: the revised 2013 Soundview Consultants report provided sheets 1, 2, and 3, of 4 sheets, however the JARPA revised application was provided and the plans appear to be the same as the original 2012 report. (iii) In the case ofproposed hard armoring stabilization solutions (e.g., bulkheads and riprap), erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to a legally established primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water -dependent development, ecological restoration/toxic clean-up remediation projects, or public improvements; and The geotechnical report page 3 agrees with the the 2013 GeoResources report stating the need to provide hard armoring between Sta. 0+25 and Sta. 1+25. However, the geotechnical review disagrees with the report stating there is a need to provide hard armoring between Sta. 1+25 through Sta. 1+90. As stated in the geotechnical review while a portion of the upper trail is directly upslope of this location it is unlikely that the erosion at the toe of the bluff will present a clear and imminent threat to that portion of the trail within 3 years. Additionally, based on the geotechnical review and the Ecology email, the 2013 GeoResources Report does not demonstrate that erosion at the toe of the bluff will present a threat to the fire lane. Therefore, based on the reports, the only clear -and imminent danger is to the existing stairway which is an established shoreline use and was previously protected by the 45-ft bulkhead. (iv) In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilization is located landward of the ordinary high water mark; and Based on information in the 2013 Yeager Report and the email from Ecology, the construction of the hard armoring (riprap) will be difficult to locate completely landward of the OHW. Therefore, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit should also address the fill that will be required for construction of the hard armoring and a shoreline location variance, which is discussed in the 2013 Yeager Report. Due to site constraints, specifically the toe of the slope, there is a physical challenge to all construction being completely landward of OHW and minimal encroachment into the OHW is a typical construction practice. (v) The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements; and 11/13/13 YA238\062.0MMABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiswmm_rev.dxx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 13 It is important to note the area has been subject to erosion since it was constructed in the 1950s. It is unclear how long the 45-ft bulkhead protected the site. The upland site structures are all over 200 ft from OHW. The past armoring on the site equated to 7 percent of the shoreline. The GeoResources report has been revised to recommend a 190-ft linear rock wall (hard armoring) to protect the stairs. Based on the geotechnical review, this amount can still be reduced and is not the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements. (vi) The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment transport are minimized to the greatest extent possible; and The 2013 GeoResources report states the proposed hard armoring and soft shore stabilization will have minimal impact on the current sediment transport. Per their report since the site is located within divergent drift zone, sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment on the east and west sides of the shoreline stabilization. The site, according to the ESA Adolfson report, is also a feeder bluff. The 2013 GeoResources report states the soft shoreline stabilization will not completely stop toe erosion and sediment will continue to enter the shoreline environment. The 2013 GeoResources report provides a conservative rate of erosion is estimated to be 1 inch to 2 inches per year. (vii) Shoreline stabilization shall not have an adverse impact on the property of others and shall be designed so as not to create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere; and The geotechnical review, on pages 2 and 3, discusses a concern regarding the area shown on the plans from Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+25. The concern is the abrupt change from hard armoring to no armoring which could cause accelerated erosion west of the bulkhead, adversely impacting the adjacent property. The geotechnical review recommends relocating the stairs. This relocation would eliminate the need of hard armoring between Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+25 and recommends soft armoring between Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+25 to minimize impacts to the adjacent property. (viii) Shoreline stabilization shall not significantly interfere with normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using an approvedfilter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage of surface and groundwater without internal erosion of fine material; and The 2012 GeoResources report, page 4 states: "Significant groundwater seepage was not observed in any of our exploration holes at the time of excavation. " Additionally, the 2012 Soundview Consultants report on page 16 states from the background research and the site visit, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of groundwater. (ix) Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and No new lands will be created by the project proposal. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ASRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 14 (x) Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline stabilization proposal within fresh water lake shorelines; and Work is not within any fresh water lake shorelines. (xi) Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and The project proposal is within the marine shoreline and will not use creosote treated wood. (xii) Revegetation with native plants is required as part of the shoreline stabilization project; MI The mitigation proposed includes native plantings; see 2012 Soundview Consultants report, Appendix C, sheet 5 of 5. Additionally, disturbance to plants will be minimal. (xiii) Shoreline stabilization shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological functions. Per the 2013 GeoResources report, page 10, the project as proposed will not have an adverse impact on ecological functions. The proposed mitigation should help restore ecological functions according to the reports. There is no monitoring proposed to ensure that the decrease in sediment transport from the bulkhead does not adversely impact the beach. (b) When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection (1)(a) of this section, the following standards shall apply: (i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters, or one foot in height above the elevation of ordinary high water mark on lakes, measured from grade on the waterward side of the bulkhead or structure; and The Soundview Consultant report provides the MHHW at elevation 11.8 ft and the OHW at elevation 12.4 ft. Due to the maximum observed tidal height at elevation 14.6 ft, the height of the bulkhead is proposed elevation 16.4 ft. Therefore the proposed rock bulkhead will extend approximately 4 ft in height from the landward side of the OHW. Based on the FWRC, the maximum elevation of the hard armoring would be elevation 12.8 ft. The proposed rock wall height will be approximately 3.6 ft higher than allowed by the FWRC. (ii) When a bulkhead or other stabilization structure has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead or structure must be located at or landward of the ordinary high water mark. Based on information in all the reports, the construction of the hard and soft armoring and repair of the stairway will all be located at or landward of the OHW. Due to physical constraints on the site, the construction of the hard armoring may encroach into OHW. Per the 2013 Yeager report, the 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 15 applicant is requesting a location variance for those areas where the hard armoring or construction for the hard armoring will encroach waterward of OHW. (iii) Repair of an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is permitted provided that the repaired bulkhead or structure is not relocated further waterward or increased in height. As stated above, the new bulkhead will be increased in height. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. Therefore the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. (iv) If an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is made within one year of destruction. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. The previous bulkhead was a 45-ft long bulkhead with the top of the bulkhead at elevation 14.8 ft. The project proposal increases both the length and height of the previously existing bulkhead by proposing a 190-ft long bulkhead, with the top of the bulkhead at elevation 16.4 ft. The replacement, as proposed, is larger than the previously existing shoreline stabilization structure and should be considered a new shoreline structure. (v) Soft -shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The proposed soft shoreline stabilization measures are not intended to provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions; however, the proposed mitigation for the work should help to restore ecological functions. (vi) The project satisfies the provisions of FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b). The revised proposal does minimize the impacts. However, the project proposal may not be in full compliance with 15.05.040 (5)(b)(ii) since it is questionable whether the revised proposal is the minimum size necessary to protect the stairs. The 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring based on the geotechnical review (pages 2 and 3) can be reduced and are not the minimum necessary to protect the site. Therefore, while the revised proposal does minimize impacts, it is not the minimum necessary. 15.05.160 Shoreline variance (1) The purpose of a shoreline variance is to grant relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the shoreline master program, where there is an extraordinary or unique circumstance relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the shoreline master 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 16 program would impose unnecessary hardship on the applicant or thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (2) When a variance is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the variance, shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the f nal approval authorityfor the city of Federal Way. The Department of Ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) A variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply: (a) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program; As stated above, the new bulkhead will be increased in height to provide protection of the stairs that provide access to the site shoreline. The top of the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft, or 2-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The proposed bulkhead is planned at elevation 16.4 ft, or 3.6-ft higher than allowed under the FWRC. The previous bulkhead was overtopped and is now moving toward the water. This means that the previous bulkhead, which was 2-ft higher than code allowed, was still overtopped by tidal waves. Since the highest observed tidal height was elevation 14.6 ft and due to the recent events in Puget Sound known as the "king" tides, it would seem prudent to construct a bulkhead higher than what previously existed on the site, especially since the previous bulkhead was overtopped and failed. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (b) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions; The hardship of limiting the bulkhead height is due to unique features on the site, including the historic landslide areas, steep slopes, and tidal wave actions, and is not a result of the applicant's own actions. The need for the higher bulkhead is to protect the replaced stairway which, once repaired, will restore access to the shoreline by those individuals staying at the retreat center. The height increase should be allowed for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. The hardship of limiting the bulkhead to the areas landward of OHW may be impossible in some areas due to the natural features on the site. (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Allowing the additional height to the bulkhead should be compatible with other permitted activities in the area, since the protection is needed to provide shoreline access and provide continued protection of the stairway accessing the site. The GeoResources report, page 7 states the project proposal will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief,• 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRCShcrelinereAew2synopsiscomm—rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 17 Since the height of the previous bulkhead [2-ft higher (elevation 14.8 ft) than the allowed height], was still over topped by tidal action, this overtopping by tidal action, most likely contributed to the previous bulkhead failure. Therefore, allowing the shoreline variance to increase in height of 3.6 ft above the allowed height to allow protection of the stairway to maintain shoreline access is not a grant of special privilege. Other properties in the area could be afforded the same relief to protect shoreline access. Based on site information; the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft and still failed; the maximum observed tide at the site was elevation 14.6 ft (Soundview Consultants report) which is above the allowed bulkhead height; and the recent Puget Sound "king tide" events, the 3.6 -ft height variance is the minimum necessary to protect the shoreline and provide relief for a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. The location variance to allow construction to encroach into the OHW is a common construction practice, especially in areas where the OHW is adjacent to a steep slope. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The additional height does not interfere with the use of the shoreline; it provides and maintains access to the shoreline for the guests at the ABRC. The bulkhead will be landward of the OHW and based on the previous document discussion, the added height on the bulkhead should not cause a detrimental effect provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. (fi That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and The project proposal for additional bulkhead height is mostly landward of the OHW; therefore, the additional height for the bulkhead will not impact the public rights of navigation of the public waterway. (g) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline. Since the maximum observed tide in the project area was elevation 14.6 ft and the previous bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft (2-ft higher than the elevation allowed by the FWRC), and still failed, based on information in all the reports, the additional height is needed to protect the stairs. Alternatively, if the height variance was denied and the bulkhead was constructed at a lower height which, due to tidal action failed, the bulkhead and stair debris that would occur from this event could have an adverse effect on the shoreline. Granting the bulkhead height variance is consistent with shoreline policies by maintaining shoreline access, providing the improvement landward of OHW, and protecting the stairway access. Additionally, protection of the stairs prevents them from failing and falling onto the shoreline area and will prevent adverse effects on the shoreline, provided the bulkhead is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. The location variance to allow construction to encroach into the OHW is a common construction practice, especially in areas where the OHW is adjacent to a steep slope. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAu AssOCIATES 18 (4) Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment, or to vary uses permitted within an environmental designation. (Ord. No. 11-705, § 5 (Exh. B), 11-1-11) The shoreline variance is to provide additional height to the proposed bulkhead and supports an allowed use in the shoreline district. Allowing additional height on a bulkhead should be limited to a bulkhead that is the minimum length necessary to protect the site. Based on the physical limitations of the site, the location variance to allow the bulkhead to encroach into OHW in areas where it is physically impossible to construct landward of OHW, should be allowed, provided the construction is as close as possible to the point landward of OHW. 15.05.170 Conditional uses (1) The purpose of the conditional use permit is to provide greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the shoreline master program in a manner which will be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW, particularly where denial of the application would thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (2) When a conditional use is requested, the substantial developmentpermit, ifrequired, and the conditional use, shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the final approval authority for the city of Federal Way. The Department of Ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) Conditional uses have unique and special characteristics which require a special degree of control to make the uses compatible with other existing or permitted uses in the same environment, and to assure that the use is in the public interest. In authorizing a conditional use permit, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the hearing examiner to prevent undesirable effects or mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed use. (4) Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent with the following criteria: (a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the shoreline master program; The project proposal to provide a bulkhead which will provide protection to a stairway that allows access to.the shoreline is consistent with the policies of the shoreline master program. The goals and policies of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are discussed in the Yeager Associates report. The main area of concern, as asserted in the code discussion above, is the amount of armoring proposed. The previous armoring was 7 percent of the shoreline while this project proposal is to armor over 50 percent of the shoreline. According to the ESA Adolfson report, the ABRC is west of Dumas Bay and in an area called Puget Sound West. The following recommendations are made in the report: "Puget Sound West: • Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay • Remove creosote dolphin washed ashore • Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins • Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead • Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove creosote piles" 11/13/13 Y:Q38\062.020\R1ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 19 According to the ESA Adolfson report, part of the required reviews in developing a Shoreline Master Plan supports the proposed mitigation; however, the report also recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay. In-depth discussions on the goals and policies of the applicable sections of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program are below. (b) The use will not interfere with normal use ofpublic shorelines; The project proposal is in an area that is not open to the public and all development work will occur landward of OHW or as close to the landward point as physically possible due to the site constraints and therefore, should not interfere with the normal use of the public shoreline. (c) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the area; The GeoResources report, page 7, states the combination of hard and soft armoring will have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent parcels. However, the geotechnical review does raise concerns on the proposed design affecting the adjacent property to the west, causing accelerated erosion on that property, see page 2 of the geotechnical review. (d) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Based on publications from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program: "Shorelines are dynamic, especially in drift zones where currents run in a particular direction and constantly move material along the beach. Disrupting the sediment supply can change the nature and composition of nearby beaches... " Furthermore, the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines west of Dumas Bay (cited at the beginning of this document). Therefore, the public interest may suffer detrimental effects due to the armoring disrupting the sediment supply and changing the composition of nearby beaches, especially the nearby public shorelines. (e) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The site is located in a littoral drift zone (2013 GeoResources report, Figure 6). Based on publications from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance program: "Shorelines are dynamic, especially in drift zones where currents run in a particular direction and constantly move material along the beach. Disrupting the sediment supply can change the nature and composition of nearby beaches... " The project proposal will be replacing 45 ft of hard armoring (7 percent of the total beach armored) and increasing it to 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring which will be armoring over 50 percent of the beach. Based on information and plans in the 2013 GeoResources report (page 9), the estimated rate of erosion is 1 inch to 2 inches per year. 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 20 Given the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmed shorelines west of Dumas Bay (cited at the beginning of this document), a cumulative impact could occur if 50 percent of the adjacent shorelines are armored with a combination of soft and hard shoreline armoring. (5) Other uses not set forth in the shoreline master program may be authorized through a conditional use permit if the applicant can demonstrate that other uses are consistent with the purpose of the shoreline environmental designation and compatible with existing shoreline improvements, or that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property; however, uses specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. (Ord. No. 11-705, § 5 (Exh. B), I1-1-11) The use is authorized in the shoreline district. Goal SN[PGI Shoreline areas shall permit a variety of development types in accordance with the City s zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) designations. Designs, densities, and locations for all allowed uses and developments should consider physical and natural features of the shoreline and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Policies SMPPI Shoreline land and water areas particularly suited for specific and al)propriate uses should be designated and reserved for such uses. The project proposal is supporting the stairway to maintain shoreline access which is an appropriate shoreline use. SMPP2 Shoreline land and water uses should satisfy the economic, social, and physical needs of the regional population, but should not lead to a net loss of ecological functions in the shoreline areas. Based on the reports, it is not clear how changing from 7 percent of shoreline armoring to over 50 percent of shoreline armoring along a natural shoreline will not lead to a net loss of ecological functions. If the proposal is approved, monitoring of the site should be required to determine if the mitigation has restored ecological functions to compensate for the hard armoring impacts. SMPP3 Like or compatible shoreline uses should be clustered or distributed in a rational manner, rather than allowed to develop haphazardly. The project proposal is an existing use to support the retreat center next to property used by the Boy Scouts of America. SMPP4Multiple uses of shoreline should be encouraged where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. The project proposal is being developed on a private shoreline that has operated as a retreat center for over 50 years. Due to the serene setting, the integration of compatible uses such as opening access across private property to the shoreline would not be compatible or feasible with the site use as a retreat center. 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\RIHBRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 21 SMPP5 Shoreline ecological functions should be protected from uses or activities that will have an adverse effect on them. Based on the ESA Adolfson report, the construction of 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring along a beach that was previously armored with a 45-ft bulkhead could create an adverse effect, especially since the ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines within this project area. SMPP6Non-residential uses or activities that are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to locate or relocate away from the shoreline. The project proposal supports a shoreline dependent use. SMPP7Federal Way should consider the goals, objectives, and policies of the shoreline master program in all land use management decisions regarding the use or development of adjacent uplands where such use or development may have an adverse effect on designated shorelines. The project proposal is not developing the upland portion of the site, this does not apply. SMPP8 Development should be regulated accordingly in shoreline areas known to contain development hazards or which would adversely impact designated critical areas as identified in Title 15 of the FWRC. a. All development should be prohibited within the 100 year floodplain, except single-family residential and water -dependent or water -related uses. The project proposal to construct shoreline armoring and reconstruct the stairs providing access supports access to the shoreline, a water -dependent use. b. All development should be prohibited in shoreline areas of severe or very severe landslide hazard. The project proposal is for shoreline stabilization. According to the GeoResources report, the project proposal is proposed in a landslide hazard area. c. All development should be regulated in shoreline areas with slopes of 40 percent or greater. The GeoResources report on page 2 states the area has inclinations of greater than 60 percent. The project proposal is to provide additional protection to the stairway to protect access to the shoreline area. d. Shoreline areas containing other potential hazards (e.g., geological conditions, unstable subsurface conditions, erosion hazards, or groundwater or seepage problems) should be regulated as necessary to avoid unsafe development and disturbance ofsensitive areas. The project proposal is in an erosion hazard area according to the GeoResources report. The stabilization and reconstruction of the stairs is regulated under the F WRC. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\RIABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU DISSOCIATES 22 SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing Shoreline Management Act requirements. The project proposal is on private property, the City of Federal Way is implementing the Shoreline Management Act Requirements through the FWRC. SMPG2 Residential use of shoreline areas should be continued and encouraged in areas that have not been designated as Natural environments by the SMP, allowing a variety of housing types. New development or redevelopment of residential uses should cause no net loss of shoreline ecological function as identified in the SMP's Shoreline Inventory Characterization and Analysis. The project proposal is not a residential development and the goals and policies of SMPG2 do not apply. SMPG3 Shoreline areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP to allow for commercial development shall permit a variety of commercial and office park development types. New development or expansion of existing commercial and office uses should result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not expansion for commercial or office use, the goals and policies of SMPG3 do not apply. SMPG4 Regional and subregional utilityfacilities, including communications, (radio, TV, and telephone), energy distribution (petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity), water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers should not be allowed in shoreline areas unless there is no alternative location. Design, location, construction, and maintenance of utility facilities must comply with the requirements of SMP regulations and other federal, state, and local laws, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not a regional or subregional utility facility, the goals and policies of SMPG4 do not apply. SMPG5 Limit shoreline stabilization — which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action — including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulkheading,. to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Policies SMPP31 Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. The project proposal is to replace the previously existing bulkhead that was 45 ft in length and 14.8 ft in height with a rock bulkhead that will be 190 ft in length and 1.6 ft higher (16.4 ft in height) with soft armoring that will extend an additional 220 ft in length. This is replacing 7 percent of shoreline stabilization on a natural shoreline zoned urban conservancy with just over 50 percent shoreline stabilization. 11/13/13 Y:\238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 23 SMPP32 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as bioengineering or soft -shore armoring would not be able to protect existing development. In Section 5 of the Soundview Consultants report, the soft armoring alternative discussion states that over a period of several years, the soft armoring would fail and the upland structures (the clubhouse is over 75 ft from the top of the slope) would be in danger. SMPP33 Planning of shoreline stabilization should encompass sizable stretches of lake or marine shorelines. This planning should consider off -site erosion, accretion, or flood damage that might occur as a result ofshoreline protection structures or activities. All of the reports state there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of the project proposal and the neighboring properties will not be impacted by the project proposal. However, the geotechnical review raises concerns to the adjacent property, the concern is the hard armoring, since it will end at the property line on the west side, has the potential to cause erosion on the adjacent property to the west. SMPP34 Shoreline stabilization on marine and lake shorelines should not be used as a means of creating new or newly developable land. The project proposal will not create new lands. SMPP35 Shoreline stabilization structures should allow passage ofground and surface waters into the main water body. The GeoResources report shows the design of the rock wall allowing water to move through the rocks to prevent hydrostatic pressures from building up behind the wall, allowing the passage of water into the main water body. The soft shoreline armoring proposed is anchored logs and would also allow passage of water into the main water body. SMPP36 Shoreline stabilization should not reduce the volume and storage capacity of streams and adjacent wetlands or flood plains. Project proposal is not in a wetland or stream. Project proposal is in a FSHA and adding the support rock may constitute fill in a flood plain. SMPP37 Whenever shoreline stabilization is needed, bioengineered alternatives such as natural berms and erosion control vegetation plans should be favored over hard surfaced structural alternatives such as concrete bulkheads and sheet piles. Per the Soundview Consultants report, Chapter 5, the only soft armoring alternative considered was the use of anchored logs. The report concluded that the use of soft armoring eventually would fail and place the structures at the top of the slope at risk. The Ecology email and the geotechnical review do not agree with the concept that the soft armoring will protect the structures at the top of the slope. 11/13/13 YA238\062.02MMABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 24 SMPP38 The burden ofprooffor the need for shoreline stabilization to protect existing developments or proposed redevelopments rests on the applicant. The need for some shoreline stabilization is evident from the reports; however, based on the geotechnical review, the proposed 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring is still more than the minimum amount necessary to provide stabilization to protect the existing development. SMPP39 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or increased shoreline protection on the same or other affected properties where there has been no previous need for protection should not be allowed. The ESA Adolfson report recommends conserving unarmored shorelines in this area. Only 7 percent of the shoreline was armored in the past, the project proposal is to conduct shoreline stabilization activities on just over 50 percent of the site, where there has been no previous need for protection. Additionally, the geotechnical review on pages 2 and 3 discusses concerns at the west end of the site and the potential for impacting the adjacent property. SMPP40 New development shall be designed and located so as not to require shoreline stabilization. The stairway will be replaced in a different area due to a recent slide, but is still repair and maintenance. Pin piles will secure the stairway in place. The bulkhead is considered new development since it is both higher and longer than the shoreline stabilization that previously existed on the site. SMPP41 Areas of significance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or residency of aquatic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in review ofproposed shoreline stabilization activities. The shoreline stabilization is placed landward of the OHW or as close to the landward portion of the OHW as if physically possible to minimize the impacts on critical salmonid habitat. SMPP42 Shoreline stabilization activities should be discouraged in areas where they would disrupt natural feeder bluffs processes important for maintaining beaches. The project proposal is to support the existing shoreline access; however the stabilization proposed is larger than previous stabilization on the site. The stairway access has been granted along this feeder bluff for over 50 years. SMPG6 Docks and moorages should be allowed when associated with residential, recreational, or other public facilities. The design, location, and construction of any dock, pier or moorage should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not a dock, moorage, or pier; the goals and policies of SMPG6 do not apply. SMPG7 Increase public access to and enjoyment ofshoreline areas through improvements to physical access on publicly owned lands and improved visual access provided that private rights, public safety, and shoreline ecological functions remain intact. The project proposal is on private property and the goals and policies of the SMP('7 do not apply. 11/13/13 Y:\236\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.doa LANDAU AssocIATES 25 SMPG8 Provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented recreation opportunities that are diverse, convenient, and adequate for the regional population, and that will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is not on public land and is only open to regional population if they are a paying guest of the ABRC. The ABRC is proposing the project to maintain the guest's access to the shoreline; however, based on the goal to provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented uses adequate for the regional population, the goals and policies of SWG8 do not apply to private property. SMPG9 Recreational experiences that depend on, or utilize, the shoreline (including: harvesting activities offish, shelfsh, fowl, minerals, and driftwood- various forms of boating, swimming, and utilization ofshoreline pathways; and watching or recording activities, such as photography, painting, or the viewing of water dependent activities) shall be encouraged within parks and other public access areas, given they do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and are allowed uses under state and local regulations. The project proposal is not a park or public property. The project proposal is on private property; the goals and policies of SMPC'9 do not apply. SMPG10 Preserve and protect the ecological functions of intact natural shorelines and ecologically sensitive shorelines as outlined within the shoreline inventory and characterization. The project proposal does not comply with the recommendations of the ESA Adolfson report, page 21. The project proposal proposes to armor over 50 percent of a vegetated shoreline in an area where conserving unarmored shorelines is recommended. Policies SMPP68 Manage designated critical areas in the shoreline — such as critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, regulated wetlands, and streams — according to measures provided in this Shoreline Master Program. These include shoreline environment designations, allowed uses, development standards and regulations, and mitigation for unavoidable impacts. They should also be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 9, Natural Environment, of the Comprehensive Plan. There were no other critical areas observed on the site per the reports. SMPP69 Develop standards, buffers, and mitigation requirements for designated critical areas in the shoreline consistent with city-wide regulations. There were no other critical areas observed on the site per the reports. SMPG11 Assure preservation of unique and non-renewable natural resources and assure conservation of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations and the public interest. 11/13/13 YA236\062.020\R\ABRC Shcreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 26 Policies SMPP70 All new development and activity in or adjacent to shoreline areas should be designed, constructed, and operated as to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality. Use of State and Local Best Management Practices and guidance should be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality. The project proposal reports, including the revised 2013 reports, provide information stating the project proposal will use BMPs and adverse impacts to ground or surface water is avoided. SMPP71 Shorelines that are of unique or valuable natural character should be considered for acquisition. Subsequent management of such areas should protect or enhance shoreline ecological functions. The project proposal is on private property and the shoreline is an integral use of that property. Acquiring the property may not be feasible for many reasons. SMPP72 Protection and conservation of vegetation within shoreline areas should be managed through implementation of setback, clearing and grading, and mitigation standards for development activity. The project proposal will preserve vegetation and provide mitigation plantings. The rock wall and stair repair will be landward of OHW or as close as possible to landward of OHW, to meet the setback requirements. SMPP73 Resource conservation should be an integral part of shoreline planning. All future shoreline development should be planned, designed, and sited to minimize adverse impact upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. The project proposal is to construct landward of OHW, or as close as possible to landward of ORW to minimize the adverse impacts upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. The concern is the length of shoreline armoring proposed on this natural shoreline. SMPG12 Develop regional solutions with other jurisdictions, tribes, and interested parties to resolve the challenge ofprotecting shoreline ecological functions while also managing shoreline developments. The project proposal is on private property the goals and policies of SMPG12 do not apply. SMPG13 Pursue projects to restore and enhance shoreline habitats and processes on publicly owned lands. The project proposal is on private property the goals and policies of SMPG13 do not apply. SMPG14 Encourage voluntary restoration projects on private property in degraded shoreline environments. 11/13/13 YA238\062.020\R\ABRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 27 The project proposal is providing some bioengineering, but it is part of a regulatory process not a voluntary restoration process. The goals and policies of SMPG14 do not apply in this case. SMPG15 Provide ample opportunity for the public to learn about the ecological aspects and community values of the City s shorelines. The project proposal is located on private property and the goals and policies of SMPG15 do not apply. SMPG16 Identify, protect, preserve, and restore important archaeological, historical, and cultural sites located in or associated with Federal Way's shorelines for scientific and educational purposes. The project proposal does not impact any archaeological, historical, or cultural resources sites according to the Archaeological and Cultural Resources Report (2012) and SMPG16 does not apply. SMPG17 Circulation systems in shoreline areas should be limited to those that are shoreline dependent or would serve shoreline dependent uses or those that must pass through shoreline areas. The environment shall be protected from any significant adverse effects of circulation systems required in shoreline areas. The project proposal is not a circulation system and the goals and policies of SMPG17 do not apply. CONCLUSIONS The FWRC is specific about what constitutes a clear and imminent threat (i.e., within 3 years) and requires proposals that are an increase over what previously existed to be viewed as a new project. Therefore, this project is not a replacement but a new proposal. The proposal is to provide a combination of hard and soft armoring along a naturally vegetated slope on the beach. Based on information in all of the reports submitted by the applicant, the hard armoring is proposed to protect the stairs accessing the beach. The reports state that 190 ft of hard armoring and 220 ft of soft armoring will be constructed. Based on the reports the 190 ft is to protect the stairway and the 220 ft is to protect the upslope features, including the fire lane (2013 GeoResources Report page 9). The fire lane is not under threat and while this proposal is substantially reduced from the original proposal, it still does not comply with the FWRC code which requires the shoreline stabilization to be the minimum necessary and monitoring of the shorelines. Additionally, the retreat center is set back 75 ft from the top of the slope and given the distance from the top of the slope, would not be under imminent threat. The report information provided also states the height of the former bulkhead was elevation 14.8 ft. The proposal being considered under the variance is to construct the bulkhead to elevation 16.4 ft. Since the previous bulkhead was 14.8 ft and still failed during heavy storms. Based on Ecology comments, the project proponent added a location variance for those portions of the hard armoring that will encroach into the OWH due to the site conditions. This is a typical construction practice in 11/13/13 Y1238\062.020\R\NBRC Shoreline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 28 areas where there are steep slopes. The height and location variance have merit for a bulkhead that is the minimum size necessary to provide protection. Therefore, based on the reports submitted by the applicant and the pertinent sections of the FWRC, the proposal should be modified to provide the minimum size necessary in an area where conservation of unarmored shorelines is recommended. CLOSING STATEMENT This review for the shoreline improvements proposed at the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center (ABRC) property in Federal Way, Washington was conducted by Landau Associates staff, Edward J. Heavey, P.E. and Theresa M. Turpin, AICP. The reviewers conducted a site visit on November 2, 2012. This report was prepared for the use of the City of Federal Way. The report is based on our understanding of the FWRC and the reports submitted by the applicant to the City of Federal Way and communication to the City by Ecology. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. TMT/EJH/jrc 11/13/13 Y:1238%062.020U2WBRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm_rev.dou tANDAu ASSOCIATES 29 REFERENCES Cultural Resource Consultants. 2012. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Bulkead and Beach Access Improvements Project, Federal Way, King County, WA. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishops of Seattle. July 31. Ecology. 2010. Focus on Shoreline Armoring, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Healthy Shorelines Equal A Healthy Puget Sound. 10-06-004. Washington State Department of Ecology. February. Ecology. 2013. Email message from David Pater, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, Washington State Department of Ecology, to Janet Shull, Associate Senior Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Federal Way. Re: Federal Way revised Palisades Retreat Center project comments. August 7. ESA Adolfson. 2007. Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for City of Federal Way, June. GeoResources 2012. Geologic Hazards Assessment Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center Shoreline Bulkhead and Stairway Restoration. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. July 31. Revised September 2, 2013. Soundview Consultants Report. 2012. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Protection and Access Repairs. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. August 2. Revised July 22, 2013. Yeager Associates. 2012. Shoreline Permit Consistency Report, Archbishop Brunett Retreat Center, Shoreline Stabilization and Stair Repair. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. August 2012. Revised July 22, 2013. Yelp, Inc. 2012. The Alex J Brunett Retreat Center. hM://www.yelp.co_m_/biz/the-alex i-brunett-retreat- center-federal-wa tb alias:AboutThisBizBiol ue :archbisho %20brunett°/n20 alisades°/420retreat %20center. December 26. 11/13/13 YA238\062.020%RWBRC Shveline review 2 synopsiscomm—rev.docx t_ANDAu ASSOCIATES 30 50TH AVE SW i : � °yy=a � f E a 3 �� > p { s RECEIVED 01 € IT R AUG 72012li�, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS 48TH AVE 8W I I r�+ -- ---'---- Sei� v j •j tS �� 4 4.gg7 w F k K I A m r • f � � Z r d •} m I 7. 1 Ir ti 8 g� PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY r► my !p BRUNETT BBAI AB A7NG cou�rr, WAS)AWTOS iz7la