post point wastewater treatment plant improvements · provide reliable wastewater treatment...

POST POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

Wetland and Wildlife Mitigation Plan

Prepared for: June 2011 City of Bellingham Department of Public Works

POST POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

Wetland and Wildlife Mitigation Plan

Prepared for: June 2011

City of Bellingham Department of Public Works 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225

5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax

www.esassoc.com

Los Angeles

Oakland

Olympia

Petaluma

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Seattle

Tampa

Woodland Hills

http://www.esassoc.com/�

City of Bellingham Post Point WWTP Improvements – Wetland and Wildlife Mitigation Plan

ESA page i June 2011

SUMMARY Applicant:

Rory Routhe City of Bellingham Department of Public Works 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225

Agent:

Lizzie Zemke ESA 5309 Shilshole Ave NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107

Project description:

The City of Bellingham Department of Public Works proposes to make improvements to the City’s Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP is approaching its treatment capacity and risks violating its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit if improvements are not completed within the near future. The City is preparing plans to maintain adequate capacity as mandated by NPDES Permit WA-002374-4, Section S4-B. In order to allow the City to accommodate its approved population growth and continue to provide reliable wastewater treatment capacity in compliance with permit requirements, the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) treatment and base hydraulic capacity of the WWTP must be increased. The project will allow the City’s effluent to comply with requirements for maintaining adequate capacity outlined in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

The WWTP improvements would include construction of four new buildings and modifications to other existing WWTP facilities. Most of the work would occur within the existing developed and fenced WWTP area; however, a new secondary clarifier would extend approximately 70 feet west beyond the existing fenced area. In addition, the City may construct a new activated sludge basin in the future; this would extend approximately 60 feet south beyond the existing fenced WWTP area. The remainder of the 28-acre site would remain undeveloped and onsite wetlands would be expanded and restored.

Location of work:

The Post Point WWTP site is located in the Fairhaven area of south Bellingham, southwest of the intersection of McKenzie Avenue and 4th Street (Sections 2 and 11, Township 37 North, Range 2 East). The site is located on the shoreline of Bellingham Bay. The 28.15-acre site is bounded by an intertidal lagoon and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad to the west and northwest; an


page ii ESA June 2011

industrial/transportation district to the north and northeast; and a residential neighborhood to the southeast, south, and southwest.

Critical areas on site:

Cantrell & Associates (2011) delineated 10 wetlands and a stream on the WWTP site (Table S-1). A great blue heron colony has been documented on the WWTP site since 2000 (Nahkeeta Northwest, 2003). The colony is located on the forested bluff southwest of the WWTP. A bald eagle nest was identified on the site in 2005, just east of the heron colony. The bald eagle nest did not appear to be active during monitoring by Nahkeeta Northwest in 2008 or in 2011, but bald eagles are regularly observed at the site.

Table S-1. Wetlands and Streams Identified on Post Point WWTP Site Feature Wetland

Rating Unit

Clas s Area On-S ite (Sq . Ft.)

Hydro-geomorphic

Clas s

Ecology Rating

Buffer Width

(ft)

Wet-A A/B/C/J (wetland mosaic)

palustrine, emergent/scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded/saturated

43,117 45,256 Sloped IV 50

Wet-B palustrine, emergent, saturated

952 Sloped IV 50

Wet-C palustrine, emergent, saturated

737 Sloped IV 50

Wet-J palustrine, scrub-shrub, saturated

450 Sloped IV 50

Wet-D D/E/G/I (wetland mosaic)

palustrine, forested, saturated

13,070 14,369 Sloped IV 50

Wet-E palustrine, scrub/shrub, saturated

512 Sloped IV 50

Wet-G palustrine emergent, saturated

311 Sloped IV 50

Wet-I palustrine, scrub/shrub, emergent, saturated

476 Sloped IV 50

Wet-H Wet-H palustrine, emergent/scrub-shrub, saturated

902 Sloped/ Depressional

IV 0

Wet-K Wet-K coastal lagoon, emergent/aquatic bed, regularly flooded

144,165 Coastal Lagoon I 100

Stream N/A Type 3 (f) N/A N/A N/A 75


ESA page iii June 2011

Avoidance and minimization measures:

The City has considered a “no development alternative” where the proposed WWTP improvements would not be implemented. This alternative was not considered feasible because it would not meet the project’s objective to reliably increase the plant’s BOD treatment capacity in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. The City has taken steps to avoid and minimize wetland impacts through design and placement of the proposed WWTP structures. New structures would be located adjacent to the existing developed portion of the site and would be the minimum size necessary to accomplish the project’s objectives.

Unavoidable wetland impacts:

The project would permanently impact 6,514 square feet of three Category IV wetland (Wetlands B and G, and a portion of Wetland A) (Table S-2). The wetland areas that would be affected currently contain mainly palustrine emergent vegetation (grass and herbs), with scattered shrubs in Wetland A. These wetlands provide low to moderate water quality improvement and low hydrologic functions (Cantrell & Associates 2011). With the exception of providing potential foraging habitat for great blue herons and other grassland-associated birds, these wetlands provide limited wildlife habitat due to ongoing human disturbance.

Table S-2. Summary of Wetland Impacts

Wetland Wetland Rating* and Size (s quare fee t)

Area o f Wetland Impact (s quare fee t)

Propos ed Fac ility Res u lting in Impact

A IV 3,965 New secondary clarifier 43,117 1,286 Relocated trail (if constructed)

B IV 952

952 New secondary clarifier

G IV 311

311 New Activated Sludge Basin 4 (future phase)

Total 6,514 All facilities and the trail. * Wetland ratings provided by Cantrell & Associates (2011).

Compensatory wetland mitigation:

The City proposes to create 11,255 square feet of estuarine wetland adjacent to the Post Point lagoon. This would provide a 1.7:1 mitigation ratio for the 6,514 square feet of wetland impact. The proposed wetland creation project would expand the area of nearshore estuarine habitat, a type of wetland that is limited in Puget Sound. Estuarine wetlands are considered to have high levels of function for fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland would be created by excavating and grading upland areas of the shoreline to allow tidal inundation, and replanting the graded area with native salt marsh plant species. The City has performed voluntary restoration of other shoreline areas within the lagoon during the last five years using these same methods, and those past restoration efforts have been successful. Therefore, compensatory wetland creation in this area appears to have a high likelihood of success.


page iv ESA June 2011

Excavation of the wetland creation area will be accomplished using heavy equipment. A temporary stream crossing (bridge) will be installed to allow equipment access to the area. When excavation is complete, the existing trail next to the wetland creation area will be removed and revegetated. The temporary stream crossing will be removed and the streambanks restored with native vegetation.

Buffer impacts and mitigation:

The project would also permanently impact 13,019 square feet of wetland and stream buffer on the site. These impacts would be mitigated through wetland and buffer enhancement. The remaining portion of Wetland A (37,856 square feet) would be enhanced through installation of native vegetation. The buffer of the wetland creation area (20,488 square feet) would be enhanced by removing an existing gravel-surface foot trail and planting the area with native shrub and herbaceous plant species.

Mitigation monitoring:

The mitigation areas will be monitored for success for a minimum of five years following complete installation. Specific performance standards and success criteria have been developed to determine whether the mitigation plan has met these goals and objectives (criteria are detailed in Section 8).

Wildlife impacts and mitigation:

To reduce potential disturbance of breeding bald eagles and great blue herons during construction, the City has established construction restriction goals. The City will limit the construction activities described below during the period from February 1 through August 31.

The City will restrict the timing of construction activities occurring within 300 feet of the bald eagle nest location and within 100 feet of the great blue heron colony core; this is the approximate distance from active nests to existing tolerated activity associated with WWTP operations.

The bald eagle and great blue heron nesting season is from February 1 to August 31; no exterior construction involving power tools or heavy equipment should occur during this time period within the 300-foot eagle buffer area or the 100-foot great blue heron buffer. This timing restriction will apply to work on the new secondary clarifier only, as it is the only construction work proposed within this distance from the nests. Work within these buffer areas can occur without restriction from September 1 to January 31.

If a situation arises during construction that necessitates action within 100 feet of the heron colony core during the February 1 through August 31 nesting season, the contractor will immediately contact the project biologist prior to commencing the activity. The biologist will consult with WDFW about the appropriate course of action.


ESA page v June 2011

To further reduce potential disturbance of eagles and herons, the portion of the trail system within 300 feet of the eagle nest or within 100 feet of the heron colony core, will be closed during construction.

Whenever possible, the contractor will use construction equipment and methods that have the least potential to disturb breeding herons and eagles. For example, the City is proposing to auger-cast piles instead of driving the piles needed to support new WWTP facilities (e.g., new secondary clarifier). Pile driving is one of the most disruptive construction methods and will be avoided as much as possible during project construction.


ESA page vii June 2011

CONTENTS

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 STREAMS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 WILDLIFE .............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 5

4.0 STUDY METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ............................................................................. 7 5.1 IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1.1 Wetland Impacts .................................................................................................................... 7 5.1.2 Wetland and Stream Buffer Impacts ...................................................................................... 8 5.1.3 Temporary Construction Disturbance ................................................................................... 9

5.2 WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................... 9 5.2.1 City of Bellingham ................................................................................................................. 9 5.2.2 State and Federal Requirements .......................................................................................... 10

5.3 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................. 10 5.3.1 Mitigation Sequencing ......................................................................................................... 10 5.3.2 Wetland Creation ................................................................................................................. 11 5.3.3 Wetland Enhancement ......................................................................................................... 13 5.3.4 Stormwater Management ..................................................................................................... 14 5.3.5 Construction Best Management Practices ........................................................................... 15

6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION – BALD EAGLE AND GREAT BLUE HERON .......................................................................................................................................... 16

6.1 IMPACTS TO GREAT BLUE HERON HABITAT ....................................................................................... 17 6.1.1 Construction Disturbance .................................................................................................... 17 6.1.2 Permanent Structures Closer to Nest Sites .......................................................................... 18

6.2 IMPACTS TO BALD EAGLE HABITAT .................................................................................................... 18 6.2.1 Construction Disturbance .................................................................................................... 19 6.2.2 Permanent Structures Closer to Nest Sites .......................................................................... 19

6.3 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN - HERONS .............................................................................................. 19 6.3.1 Mitigation Sequencing ......................................................................................................... 19 6.3.2 Permanent Trail Closure ..................................................................................................... 19 6.3.3 Habitat Enhancement .......................................................................................................... 19 6.3.4 Construction Timing and Methods ...................................................................................... 20 6.3.5 Long-Term Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 21

6.4 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN-EAGLES ................................................................................................. 21 6.4.1 Mitigation Sequencing ......................................................................................................... 21 6.4.2 Permanent Trail Closure ..................................................................................................... 21 6.4.3 Habitat Enhancement .......................................................................................................... 21 6.4.4 Construction Timing and Methods ...................................................................................... 22 6.4.5 Long-Term Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 23

7.0 MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................ 23 7.1 ESTUARINE WETLAND CREATION ....................................................................................................... 23

7.1.1 Grading and Site Preparation ............................................................................................. 23 7.1.2 Planting ............................................................................................................................... 24 7.1.3 Staging and Sequencing ...................................................................................................... 24


page viii ESA June 2011

7.2 STREAM CROSSING ............................................................................................................................. 25 7.2.1 Site Preparation and Bridge Removal ................................................................................. 25 7.2.2 Temporary Equipment Crossing .......................................................................................... 26 7.2.3 Stream Restoration .............................................................................................................. 26

7.3 WETLAND A ENHANCEMENT .............................................................................................................. 26 7.3.1 Staging and Sequencing ...................................................................................................... 26 7.3.2 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................... 26 7.3.3 Planting ............................................................................................................................... 26

8.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .......................................... 27

9.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................... 31 9.1 MONITORING REPORTS ....................................................................................................................... 35 9.2 MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................... 35

10.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN ............................................................................................................. 35

11.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 36

12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 37

FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS ............................................................................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B: BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C: BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: 2010 GREAT BLUE HERON MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT 2003 HERON COLONY MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E: GRADING AND PLANTING PLANS ....................................................................... E-1

LIST OF FIGURES

1 – Vicinity Map

2 – Existing Conditions

3 – Wetland and Buffer Impacts and Conceptual Mitigation Areas

4 – Habitat Impact and Mitigation Areas

5 – Heron and Eagle Nest Detail

LIST OF TABLES

Table S-1. Wetlands and Streams Identified on Post Point WWTP Site ....................................... ii


ESA page ix June 2011

Table S-2. Summary of Wetland Impacts ..................................................................................... iii

Table 3. Wetlands and Streams Identified on Post Point WWTP Site .......................................... 3

Table 4. Wetland Function Assessment ......................................................................................... 4

Table 5. Summary of Wetland Impacts .......................................................................................... 8

Table 6. Summary of Permanent Wetland and Stream Buffer Impacts ......................................... 9

Table 7. Typical Wetland Mitigation Ratios – Corps and Ecology ............................................. 10

Table 8. Approved Work Windows for Marine and Estuarine Areas .......................................... 16


ESA Page 1 June 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of the City of Bellingham Department of Public Works and Carollo Engineers, ESA prepared this wetland and wildlife mitigation plan (Plan) for proposed improvements (project) to the City’s Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

The WWTP is approaching its treatment capacity and risks violating its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit if improvements are not completed within the near future. The City is preparing plans to maintain adequate capacity as mandated by NPDES Permit WA-002374-4, Section S4-B. In order to allow the City to accommodate its approved population growth and continue to provide reliable wastewater treatment capacity in compliance with permit requirements, the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) treatment and base hydraulic capacity of the WWTP must be increased. The project will allow the City’s effluent to comply with requirements for maintaining adequate capacity outlined in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

The Scope of Work for this report included an evaluation of wetland, buffer, and wildlife impacts resulting from the project and development of a mitigation plan. Wetlands within the City’s property limits (site) were previously delineated and rated by Cantrell & Associates (2011).

This report first provides an overview of the site and describes the proposed project. It then describes the project’s proposed impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers, and wildlife habitat (bald eagle and great blue heron) and describes mitigation for these impacts.

This Plan has been prepared in support of the City of Bellingham Public Works Department’s application for a Critical Areas Ordinance Exemption for the WWTP improvements project, as well as applications for state and federal wetland permits. The project applicant is:

Rory Routhe City of Bellingham Department of Public Works 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Post Point WWTP site is located in the Fairhaven area of south Bellingham, southwest of the intersection of McKenzie Avenue and 4th Street (Figure 1; Sections 2 and 11, Township 37 North, Range 2 East). The site is located on the shoreline of Bellingham Bay. The WWTP was built in 1974 and upgraded to secondary treatment in 1994.

The 28.15-acre site is bounded by an intertidal lagoon and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad to the west and northwest; an industrial/transportation district to the north and northeast; and a residential neighborhood to the southeast, south, and southwest. Access to the facility is from


Page 2 ESA June 2011

McKenzie Road at the northern portion of the property boundary. The site slopes gently downward to the northwest toward the lagoon and Bellingham Bay. Steep slopes are present along the southern and eastern portions of the site. Representative photos of the site are provided in Appendix A.

The northeastern portion of the WWTP site is developed with existing treatment structures and support buildings, access roads, parking areas, and landscaping (Figure 2). In addition to developed areas immediately adjacent to the WWTP, the City constructed a pedestrian recreational loop trail on the unused portion of the property in 1994 (Figure 2). Community residents use the trail to access the lagoon and waterfront. The southeast corner of the property is a grassy field used by the community as an off-leash dog area. The slopes on the southern portion of the site are wooded.

2.1 Wetlands

In 2009, Cantrell & Associates delineated 10 wetlands on the WWTP site (Table 1; Figure 2) (Cantrell & Associates 2011). The City does not regulate wetlands less than 1,000 square feet in size unless they are hydrologically connected to a stream, contain essential habitat for priority species, or are part of a wetland mosaic (Bellingham Municipal Code [BMC] 16.55.270.B.1). Wetland mosaics that include individual wetlands less than 1,000 square feet are regulated.

Most of the wetlands on the site are less than 1,000 square feet in size; however, two groups of wetlands identified on the site meet the definition of a wetland mosaic. Cantrell & Associates (2011) rated the onsite wetlands using the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System (Table 2). Wetlands A, B, C, and J constitute a Category IV wetland rating unit or wetland mosaic, and Wetlands D, E, G, and I constitute a second Category IV wetland rating unit or wetland mosaic. Wetland K (also known as Post Point lagoon) is a Category I Coastal Lagoon wetland.

The Post Point lagoon (Wetland K) is a tidally influenced, estuarine wetland containing emergent and aquatic bed vegetation. The lagoon is connected to Bellingham Bay by a narrow channel under a bridge supporting the railroad tracks. The other onsite wetlands are freshwater (palustrine) wetlands with emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested vegetation communities containing a mixture of native and non-native plant species.



Table 3. Wetlands and Streams Identified on Post Point WWTP Site Feature Wetland

Rating Unit

Clas s Area On-S ite (Sq . Ft.)

Hydro-geomorphic

Clas s

Ecology Rating

Buffer Width

(ft)

Wet-A A/B/C/J (wetland mosaic)

palustrine, emergent/scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded/saturated

43,117 45,256 Sloped IV 50

Wet-B palustrine, emergent, saturated

952 Sloped IV 50

Wet-C palustrine, emergent, saturated

737 Sloped IV 50

Wet-J palustrine, scrub-shrub, saturated

450 Sloped IV 50

Wet-D D/E/G/I (wetland mosaic)

palustrine, forested, saturated

13,070 14,369 Sloped IV 50

Wet-E palustrine, scrub/shrub, saturated

512 Sloped IV 50

Wet-G palustrine emergent, saturated

311 Sloped IV 50

Wet-I palustrine, scrub/shrub, emergent, saturated

476 Sloped IV 50

Wet-H Wet-H palustrine, emergent/scrub-shrub, saturated

902 Sloped/ Depressional

IV 0

Wet-K Wet-K coastal lagoon, emergent/aquatic bed, regularly flooded

144,165 Coastal Lagoon I 100

Stream N/A Type 3 (f) N/A N/A N/A 75



Table 4. Wetland Function Assessment

Function Qualita tive Rating o f Function* WRU

A/B/C/J WRU

D/E/G/I Wetland

H Wetland

K Potential For Water Quality Functions

Low Moderate Moderate Low

Opportunity For Water Quality Functions

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Potential For Hydrologic Functions

Low Low Low Low

Opportunity For Hydrologic Functions

No No No No

Potential For Habitat Functions Low Moderate Low Moderate

Opportunity For Habitat Functions

Moderate Moderate Low Moderate

Specific Habitat Functions Vegetation Structure Low Moderate Low Low

Habitat Features Low Moderate Low Moderate Buffer Quality Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Priority Habitats Moderate Moderate Low High Habitat Connectivity Moderate Moderate Low Moderate

Total DOE Rating Score 20 25 27 N/A

Category IV IV IV I *WRU = wetland rating unit Source: Cantrell & Associates (2011).

2.2 Streams

Cantrell & Associates (2011) also documented a stream at the base of a slope along the southern portion of the site (Figure 2). It originates at a culvert that conveys stormwater from upslope residential areas, and flows west into the Post Point lagoon. This stream meets the City’s definition of a Type 3 stream having “moderate to slight fish, wildlife, and human use.” The stream is presumed to be used by fish, as defined in the City code, because it has a defined channel of two feet or greater within the bankfull width, and a gradient of less than 16 percent (BMC 16.55.510). In addition, the City removed culverts on the lower part of the stream during past restoration work at the Post Point lagoon, and so this portion of the stream is accessible to fish (Weil, pers. comm., 2010). The minimum buffer width for Type 3 streams is 75 feet (BMC 16.55.500.D – Table 6).



2.3 Wildlife

A great blue heron colony has been documented on the WWTP site since 2000 (Appendix D Nahkeeta Northwest, 2003). The colony is located on the forested bluff southwest of the WWTP (Figure 2). It is the only known great blue heron nesting colony associated with Bellingham Bay. Nahkeeta Northwest prepared the management plan for the colony in 2003 (Post Point Heron Colony Management Plan) and has conducted monitoring through 2010 (Appendix D, Nahkeeta Northwest, 2003, 2010). The management plan has not been officially adopted by the City, but is used by City staff to guide development decisions. Nahkeeta Northwest is currently conducting 2011 monitoring of the heron colony.

The great blue heron colony had a peak size of 37 nests occupying 15 trees in 2006. In 2007, the colony decreased in size to 27 nests and some nest trees were lost in winter storms. In 2008 and 2009, the herons nested but later abandoned the colony prior to fledging of young. As of June 2010, the colony had successfully produced young in 11 active nests (Appendix D, Nahkeeta Northwest, 2010).

In 2005, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recorded a bald eagle nest located on the forested slope near the great blue heron colony (WDFW, 2010). For the purposes of this mitigation plan, it is assumed that the nest is approximately located as was mapped by WDFW in 2005 (Figure 2)1

3.0 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION

. In 2008, WWTP staff observed bald eagle incursions into the heron colony; however, a bald eagle nest located near the colony did not appear to be active at that time (Nahkeeta Northwest, 2008). During monitoring of the heron colony in 2010, a male bald eagle was consistently perched in the vicinity of the colony, while a female eagle was occasionally observed (Appendix D, Nahkeeta Northwest, 2010). The specific location of the eagle nest was not observed by ESA because the nest area is densely vegetated and located on a ridge above the WWTP.

The proposed project would upgrade the Post Point WWTP by expanding the core primary and secondary treatment processes, thereby increasing the plant’s BOD treatment capacity. The plant is near capacity and risks violating its discharge permit requirements if improvements are not completed. This project includes the following elements (Figure 3):

• Construction of a chemical facility to enhance solids removal during primary treatment;

• Modifications to existing primary effluent (PE) and return activated sludge (RAS) pump stations and flow splitting structures;

• A new anaerobic selector basin;

1 WDFW has granted permission for the location of the bald eagle nest to be shown in this report.



• Additional activated sludge basins and associated mechanical facilities (Activated Sludge Basin 4 [one of the two new basins] will likely be constructed as part of a future phase);

• A fourth secondary clarifier;

• A new blower building to provide oxygen to the biological process;

• Retrofits to the existing activated sludge basins for conversion to air;

• Modifications and improvements to existing electrical and control systems; and

• Potential construction of a rain garden approximately 6,000 square feet in area.

Construction will require extensive modifications to existing facilities and yard piping while in operation; integration of new structures within the existing site boundaries; and detailed sequencing to address operational needs, neighborhood impacts, and sensitive environmental areas surrounding the site.

The City of Bellingham Public Works Department retained Carollo Engineers in December 2008 to begin planning the Post Point WWTP improvements. The team has also selected a general contractor/construction manager (GC/CM). The GC/CM will work with the project team to complete design and construction documents by March 2012.

The exact construction methods, materials, and equipment to be used will be determined by the City and the GC/CM during 2011. New structures would be constructed largely of concrete, similar to the existing WWTP facilities. The types of equipment likely to be needed would be typical of a large construction project and may include dump trucks, concrete trucks, a truck-mounted crane, backhoes, and hand-held power tools. Dewatering may be required for deep excavation areas (e.g., the new secondary clarifier). Some structures would be supported by new auger-cast drilled pilings.

4.0 STUDY METHODS

The methods used to prepare this mitigation plan included review of existing information, site visits, and meetings with the project engineers and agency staff to discuss the project.

ESA reviewed several background documents in preparing this mitigation plan. Key references included:

• Critical Areas Assessment Report – Wetland Delineation – Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (Cantrell & Associates, 2011);

• Pre-application Conference submittal materials provided to City of Bellingham for Post Point WWTP improvements project (Carollo Engineers, 2010);



• Post Point Heron Colony Management Plan – 2003 (Appendix D, Nahkeeta Northwest, 2003);

• Post Point Great Blue Heron Colony Monitoring Progress Report – May-June 2010 (Appendix D, Nahkeeta Northwest, 2010);

• WDFW management recommendations for great blue heron (1999, 2005) and bald eagle (2000, 2008); and

• Post Point great blue heron colony regulatory requirements memo (ESA Adolfson, 2009).

ESA biologists Catherine Conolly, Sara Noland, and Lizzie Zemke visited the project site in September and October 2010 and March and April 2011. The purpose of the site visits was to review existing conditions in the proposed project construction areas, evaluate the functions of critical areas, and assess opportunities for mitigation of critical areas impacts. The qualifications of these biologists are provided in Appendix B.

On October 18, 2010, a meeting was held at the WWTP to explain the project and explore mitigation options. Attendees included City Public Works and Planning Department staff, consultant staff (ESA and Carollo Engineers), the WDFW local biologist, and Washington State Department of Ecology staff. This was followed by a pre-application meeting at the City of Bellingham Planning Department on November 2, 2010, to review City permitting requirements in detail.

5.0 WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

5.1 Impac ts

5.1.1 Wetland Impac ts

The proposed WWTP improvements would result in a total of 6,514 square feet of permanent impact within three wetlands (Table 3; Figure 3). Seven of the 10 wetlands on the site will not be affected by the proposed project. Affected wetlands would be excavated and portions backfilled to allow construction of the new secondary clarifier and future activated sludge basin. Wetlands would be filled to support the relocated walking trail west of the new clarifier if it is constructed in the future. It should be noted that the City is taking a protective, phased approach to re-constructing the trail that will be displaced by the new clarifier building. There are two scenarios that could enable construction of a portion of this replacement trail through Wetland A: 1) if herons abandon the nests and do not return for 10 years; in this case the trail might be reconstructed after the 10 years; 2) if the herons thrive following the WWTP expansion and it appears that they are not affected by the construction and increased activity; in this case the trail could be reconstructed in the next 2 or 3 years.



Only a portion of Wetland G would be directly within the footprint of the new activated sludge basin; however, due to the small size of this wetland (311 square feet) we have assumed the entire wetland will be permanently lost.

The new secondary clarifier is designed to match the three existing 120-foot-diameter circular clarifiers. The new Activated Sludge Basin 4 structure will likely be constructed in a subsequent phase, when the additional capacity is needed. If constructed, the basin will be approximately 150 feet long and 50 feet wide. The final phasing decision will be made in 2011 and included in the final recommended implementation plan. Construction of a replacement trail around the west side of the new secondary clarifier may occur in a future phase, but this depends on the results of ongoing monitoring of the great blue heron colony (see Section 6).

Table 5. Summary of Wetland Impacts

Wetland Wetland Rating* and Size (s quare fee t)

Area o f Wetland Impact (s quare fee t)

Propos ed Fac ility Res u lting in Impact

A IV 3,965 New secondary clarifier 43,117 1,286 Relocated trail (if constructed)

B IV 952

952 New secondary clarifier

G IV 311

311 New Activated Sludge Basin 4 (future phase)

Total 6,514 All facilities and the trail. * Wetland ratings provided by Cantrell & Associates (2011).

Cantrell & Associates (2011) assigned all affected wetlands a rating of Category IV using the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). Wetland fills and dredging are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and City of Bellingham.

The wetland areas that would be affected currently contain mainly palustrine emergent vegetation (grass and herbs), with limited shrubs in Wetland A. These wetlands provide low to moderate potential for water quality improvement, and low potential for hydrologic functions (Cantrell & Associates 2011). With the exception of providing potential foraging habitat for great blue herons and other grassland-associated birds, these wetlands provide limited wildlife habitat due to their disturbed nature and the frequent presence of dogs. The proposed mitigation project is expected to provide a net improvement in wetland functions on the site (see Section 5.3).

5.1.2 Wetland and S tream Buffe r Impac ts

The City of Bellingham assigns buffer widths based on the wetland category, the adjacent land use, and the functions provided by the wetland (BMC 16.55.340.B).

Construction of the new secondary clarifier would result in 7,019 square feet of permanent impacts to the buffer of Wetland A (see Figure 3). The project would avoid permanent impacts



to the buffers of Wetlands D, E, and K (Table 4). Placement of the new rain garden would result in the loss of approximately 6,000 square feet of stream buffer. The rain garden would be vegetated with native emergent plant species and would continue to buffer the stream; once constructed, the rain garden is likely to improve the quality of water entering the stream.

Table 6. Summary of Permanent Wetland and Stream Buffer Impacts

Wetland/Stream Wetland Rating

Standard Buffer Width

(feet)*

Buffer Impact (square feet)

Comments

A IV 50 7,019 Permanent buffer impacts due to new secondary clarifier

Unnamed Stream 3 75 6,000 Rain garden will be located within stream buffer

* Buffer requirements per BMC 16.55.340, Cantrell & Associates (2011).

5.1.3 Tempora ry Cons truc tion Dis turbance

Existing paved access roads and gravel-surfaced trails will be used to access the construction work areas as much as possible, in order to avoid and minimize disturbance of vegetation and soils. However, it may be necessary to establish additional access points in some areas where existing roads and trails do not provide sufficient access. For example, the contractor will likely need an approximately 20-foot-wide corridor around the excavation area for the new secondary clarifier. This would temporarily impact portions of Wetland A and its buffer. In addition, heavy equipment will need to access the wetland creation area located on the southwest shore of Post Point lagoon (Figure 3). The plan is for equipment to follow the existing pedestrian trail and to cross the unnamed stream to access this part of the lagoon. Measures to protect and restore the stream crossing are discussed in Section 5.3.5.

5.2 Wetland Mitiga tion Requirements

5.2.1 City of Be llingham

The City’s critical areas regulations provide an exemption for construction of essential public facilities, including wastewater treatment plant expansion (BMC 16.55.080.D.11). An applicant for an essential public facility exemption must demonstrate that: (1) there is no practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on critical areas; (2) proposed alterations of critical areas are the minimum necessary for the project; (3) construction of the facility will minimize adverse impacts on critical areas; and (4) the project uses best available science and results in no net loss of function of critical areas (BMC 16.55.080.D.11).

Exempt activities must use reasonable methods and best management practices to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas, and to restore or replace critical areas that are affected. Best



management practices can include tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications (BMC 16.55.080.B, C).

5.2.2 Sta te and Federa l Requirements

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulate impacts to wetlands. The Corps and Ecology typically require replacement of lost wetland area at a greater than 1:1 ratio. For example, for impacts to Category IV wetlands, the typical mitigation ratio for creation is 1.5:1 (Table 5). The applicant must demonstrate how lost wetland functions will be replaced. For the Post Point WWTP project, the Corps will require a minimum 1:1 wetland creation ratio and prefers a ratio of 1.5:1 (Perry, pers. comm., 2010).

Table 7. Typical Wetland Mitigation Ratios – Corps and Ecology

Wetland Category

Rees tab lis hment o r Crea tion

Rehabilita tion Only

Rees tab lis hment o r Crea tion (R/C)

and Rehabilita tion

(RH)

Rees tab lis hment o r Crea tion (R/C)

and Enhancement (E)

Enhancement Only

IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1 RH

1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1

Source: Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al., 2006.

5.3 Wetland Mitiga tion P lan

5.3.1 Mitiga tion Sequenc ing

The City, Ecology, and the Corps require project applicants to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, the applicant must follow the mitigation sequencing process to first avoid and minimize impacts before proposing compensatory mitigation (BMC 16.55.250).

As required by BMC 16.55.210.C, the City has considered a “no development alternative” where the proposed WWTP improvements would not be implemented. This alternative was not considered feasible because it would not meet the project’s objective to increase the plant’s biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) treatment capacity and meet permit requirements for WWTP discharge.

Under the No Action Alternative, the current WWTP would approach its rated BOD capacity in the very near future (City of Bellingham, 2009). Based on historical records, the Post Point WWTP has exceeded 85 percent of the permitted plant BOD waste-load capacity (25,530 pounds per day [ppd]) for a minimum of 3 months in each of the past 4 years. Exceeding the rated plant capacity will increase the risk of violating the water quality parameters as regulated by the



NPDES discharge permit and potentially contaminating Bellingham Bay. The No Action Alternative also fails to meet the City’s goals and policies for managing growth in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) as stated in the approved Comprehensive Plan (City of Bellingham, 2006). Even with long-term BOD conservation efforts, the City cannot achieve their targeted urban densities while providing for safe and reliable sewer service in the short-term. As a result, the City is proceeding with evaluation of capacity improvements in accordance with its NPDES permit.

Based on the BOD capacity requirements identified, the City evaluated liquid stream improvements for primary and secondary treatment. The facilities planning analysis evaluated the alternatives based on a “Triple Bottom Line Plus Technical” (TBL+) approach that considers economic, social, technical, and environmental impacts of process selection. Using this approach, the City incorporated its stewardship values through an audit procedure to select key unit processes and facility design. Each alternative was developed and evaluated based on the current NPDES permit limits with weight given to potential future permit considerations. Based on the TBL+ evaluation and the design criteria established, the City selected the best overall alternative; this alternative will unavoidably impact critical areas. To minimize the environmental impact, the team refined the site layout to reduce the impact on sensitive areas directly south of the existing activated sludge basins.

The City has taken steps to avoid and minimize wetland impacts through design and placement of the proposed WWTP structures. New structures would be located adjacent to the existing developed portion of the site and would be the minimum size necessary to accomplish the project’s objectives. Construction of the new secondary clarifier would account for most of the project’s unavoidable wetland impacts. The new clarifier’s location is dictated by the need to be in line with the existing clarifiers in order for the wastewater treatment process to occur.

Temporary impacts to wetlands and buffers would be avoided and minimized during construction of the project. See Section 5.3.5 for discussion.

5.3.2 Wetland Crea tion

The City proposes to create an estuarine wetland area adjacent to the Post Point lagoon (Figure 3). The wetland creation area would cover 11,255 square feet, providing a 1.7:1 mitigation ratio for the 6,514 square feet of wetland impact.

Wetland would be created by excavating and grading upland areas of the shoreline to allow tidal inundation, and replanting the graded area with native salt marsh plant species. Proposed elevations relative to mean higher high water tide levels are discussed in Section 7.1.1. The wetland creation area has been configured to preserve existing native vegetation along the shoreline, including both upland woody species and existing salt marsh. The City has recently performed voluntary restoration of other shoreline areas within this same lagoon, funded in part by the City’s Sewer Fund, using these same methods, and those past restoration efforts have been successful. Therefore, compensatory wetland creation in this area appears to have a high likelihood of success.



The goals of the wetland creation project are to:

• Create 11,255 square feet of estuarine wetland as compensatory mitigation for 6,514 square feet of permanent impact to palustrine emergent wetland (Wetlands A, B, and G), providing a 1.7:1 mitigation ratio.

• Provide a net improvement in the wildlife functions of onsite wetlands by increasing the area of estuarine habitat adjacent to Post Point lagoon.

• Provide for permanent protection of the wetland creation area and the entire Post Point lagoon through fencing and signs.

5.3.2.1

Cantrell & Associates (2011) completed a rating of the onsite wetlands using the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). The wetlands that would be impacted are Category IV slope wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and G). Wetland B is mowed. These wetlands provide low to moderate potential for water quality improvement, and low potential for hydrologic functions (Cantrell & Associates 2011). The wetlands lack clay or organic soils and have limited areas of dense emergent vegetation that would help to filter and remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Because they are slope wetlands with limited areas of dense rigid vegetation or depressions, they have limited capacity to store surface runoff or slow the velocity of surface flows.

Functions Assessment

Wetland rating unit A/B/C/J has a low potential for providing habitat functions. These wetlands together provide a combination of emergent and scrub-shrub habitat, but they contain a limited number of native plant species and some invasive species, have simplified vegetation patterns (low interspersion), and lack special features such as woody debris. Wetland rating unit D/E/G/I has a moderate habitat potential. This unit contains forested as well as emergent and scrub-shrub vegetation classes, provides large woody debris and snags, and has limited invasive vegetation (Cantrell & Associates, 2011). The portion of this rating unit that would be impacted by the project (Wetland G) contains only emergent habitat. All of these wetlands experience the frequent presence of people and dogs, which can disturb wildlife.

The proposed wetland creation project would expand the area of nearshore estuarine habitat, a type of wetland that is limited in Puget Sound. Estuarine wetlands, particularly those that support eelgrass, are considered to have high levels of function for fish and wildlife habitat, and they receive a rating of Category I or II using the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). They provide variety of ecological functions, and are highly productive, annually producing large amounts of carbon that fuel nearshore food webs. Shellfish, such as crabs and bivalves, use eelgrass beds for habitat and nursery areas. Fish such as juvenile salmonids, use eelgrass beds as migratory corridors as they pass through Puget Sound; the beds provide both protection from predators and abundant food.

While Wetland A provides potential foraging habitat for great blue heron, this area has not been observed being used by herons (Eissinger, pers. comm., 2010), perhaps because of ongoing



disturbance by recreationists and dogs. The wetland creation project would increase the area of protected heron foraging habitat by creating additional estuarine intertidal and saltmarsh area that is permanently fenced. The existing Post Point lagoon is used by herons for foraging (Eissinger, pers. comm., 2010). The City has voluntarily restored portions of the lagoon with saltmarsh plant species, and has placed temporary fencing and signs around the lagoon to alert the public to the sensitivity of this area. The fencing and signs would be retained around the lagoon and the new wetland creation area to permanently protect these resources from human disturbance.

In summary, while the proposed project would result in the loss of some palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-shrub wetland, it would expand the area of estuarine lagoon habitat, which is a relatively rare wetland type in Puget Sound, on the site, resulting in a net increase in wetland area, foraging habitat for great blue herons, as well as habitat for other aquatic species. Permanent fencing and signs around the wetland creation area and the entire Post Point lagoon would protect these resources from disturbance by humans and dogs.

5.3.2.2

The buffer for the estuarine wetland creation area will consist of existing native trees and shrubs supplemented with native shrub and herbaceous plantings. As part of past voluntary restoration activities, the City has planted native woody vegetation along both sides of the pedestrian trail that parallels this portion of the lagoon. These existing plantings will be retained, except in areas that will be excavated to create estuarine wetland (Figure 4). The gravel-surfaced pedestrian trail will be removed and revegetated with native species. Salt-tolerant herbaceous species such as Pacific silverweed, gumweed, saltgrass and tufted hairgrass will be planted around the fringes of the estuarine wetland creation area. Native shrubs will be installed along the rest of the decommissioned trail alignment. The area of new plantings will total 20,393 square feet. See Section 7.1 for detailed discussion of planting plans. In general, the area of protected native upland vegetation adjacent to the estuarine wetland creation area will exceed the City’s requirement of a 100-foot buffer for Category I wetlands. The buffer on the northwest side of the wetland will be narrower due to the adjacent railroad tracks.

Buffer Area

5.3.2.3

In order to ensure continued protection of the Post Point lagoon, including the wetland creation area, the City proposes to permanently retain the existing fencing and signs around the lagoon. The fence and signs were originally intended to be temporary; however, it has become apparent that restricting access by humans and dogs to the lagoon has allowed increased foraging by herons in this area. Permanent fencing therefore is deemed appropriate to support the heron colony and protect both the wetland creation area and the City’s recent voluntary restoration areas along the lagoon shoreline from trampling and other disturbance.

Fencing and Signage

5.3.3 Wetland Enhancement

Construction of the secondary clarifier will result in 7,019 square feet of permanent impacts to the buffer of Wetland A (Figure 3). This buffer area currently has low functions as it consists of the gravel trail and landscaping.



As mitigation for these buffer impacts, the City proposes to enhance the remaining portion of Wetland A (37,856 square feet) through installation of native vegetation (Figure 3). This would provide a mitigation ratio of 5:1 wetland enhancement for the proposed buffer impacts. Woody vegetation will be installed throughout most of this enhancement area, except immediately adjacent to the alignment of the pedestrian trail which may eventually be reconstructed around the new clarifier (Figure 3). Due to safety concerns, native plantings along the trail alignment will be limited to low-growing emergent wetland species to allow a line of sight for users of the relocated trail.

The goals of the wetland enhancement project are to:

• Provide 37,856 square feet of wetland enhancement as compensatory mitigation for 7,019 square feet of permanent impact to the buffer of Wetland A.

• Increase woody vegetation in Wetland A, to the extent possible given potential future trail safety issues, to help screen the new secondary clarifier from the great blue heron nesting colony to the southwest.

• Provide a net increase of scrub-shrub habitat at the site, thereby increasing foraging, nesting, and shelter opportunities for wildlife.

5.3.4 Stormwate r Management

The City requires that wetland hydrology should not be adversely affected by stormwater management following completion of a project (BMC 16.55.330.B). The Post Point WWTP project would comply with the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The southern portion of the site, where the proposed construction will occur, drains to the stream described earlier, which discharges into the Post Point lagoon. The stream currently provides basic treatment for the existing stormwater runoff (Wilson Engineering, 2010).

The WWTP improvement project would add approximately one acre of impervious surface to the site and increase stormwater runoff from the site by approximately 0.3 cubic feet per second for the 100-year storm event. Stormwater from developed portions of the site will be collected by catch basins and conveyed through underground piping to the existing discharge point in the stream. Because the Post Point lagoon currently receives stormwater from the site via the drainage from the stream, it is not anticipated that the additional stormwater runoff will impact the hydrologic condition, hydrophytic vegetation, or substrate characteristics of the lagoon (Wilson Engineering, 2010).

The City can continue operating under its existing Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISWGP) discharge conditions. As an environmental steward, the City is evaluating the opportunity to implement additional treatment as part of this project or potentially in the future. This Plan assumes the potential design of a rain garden approximately 6,000 square feet in area for the purposes of site planning (Figure 3). The rain garden has been tentatively located south of Wetland A, outside of wetlands and wetland buffers but within the stream buffer. The rain garden



will be designed to slow stormwater flows and attenuate pollutants before the runoff reaches the stream.

5.3.5 Cons truc tion Bes t Management Prac tices

The following measures, at a minimum, will be used during construction to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and buffers:

• The project will comply with City of Bellingham requirements for clearing, grading, and stormwater drainage.

• Construction activities for the fourth secondary clarifier will follow timing restrictions to protect great blue heron and bald eagle breeding (see Section 6.3).

• The City will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit from Ecology for the project.

• Contractors will be required to use standard construction best management practices to minimize erosion and reduce the potential for spills of hazardous materials (fuels, hydraulic fluids, concrete, etc.).

• Contractors will be required to have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan, and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan approved by the City and Ecology.

• Any groundwater pumped from excavation areas will be treated before discharge to water bodies.

• The boundaries of wetlands, wetland buffers, and stream buffers, and the limits of construction work areas and equipment access routes will be clearly marked on the ground. Temporary, highly visible construction fencing will be used to protect critical areas per BMC 16.55.230.B. Construction disturbance to wetlands and wetland/stream buffers will be the minimum necessary to accomplish the project.

• Where equipment must cross portions of Wetland A near the secondary clarifier, rubber mats or other measures will be installed to minimize erosion and compaction of wetland soils.

• Staging of equipment and materials will occur outside of wetland and buffer areas.

• All areas temporarily disturbed by construction will be restored to preconstruction conditions.

In addition, several measures will be implemented to protect water quality in Post Point lagoon during construction of the wetland creation area. This work will follow the timing windows established by the Corps and WDFW for marine and estuarine fish species. The Corps’ standard



work windows for Tidal Reference Area 9, which includes Bellingham, are shown in Table 6. Using these dates as a guide, the in-water work would occur in late summer or early fall (September). This would also avoid wetland creation work during the sensitive breeding period for bald eagle and great blue heron (February 1 – August 31). These in-water work windows may be revised pending further discussion with the Corps and WDFW.

Table 8. Approved Work Windows for Marine and Estuarine Areas

Species Allowed Work Window Salmon July 2 – March 2 Bull trout July 16 – February 15 Surf smelt Year-round Pacific herring June 1 – January 31 Pacific sand lance March 2 – October 14 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010.

Best management practices (BMPs) will be used during excavation and grading of the wetland creation area, to avoid and minimize erosion, sedimentation, and release of hazardous materials to the lagoon. Work below the mean higher high water line (approximately 8 feet elevation) will be completed during low tide. Measures such as silt fencing or sediment curtains will be installed prior to the beginning of work. The City will apply for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for the in-water work from the WDFW, and will comply with any additional BMPs specified in that permit.

To access the wetland creation area, it is assumed that construction equipment will use the existing trail and bridge to cross west over the stream, and then head north from the trail to the work area. The existing wooden footbridge crossing of the stream will not be strong or wide enough to support the equipment. The City plans to remove the footbridge and install a temporary equipment crossing in the same location. After the wetland creation project is complete, the temporary crossing will be removed and the stream channel restored; this portion of the trail will be obliterated and the footbridge will not be replaced.

6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION – BALD EAGLE AND GREAT BLUE HERON

The Post Point WWTP site is the location of a great blue heron colony and a bald eagle nest (Figure 2). Both of these breeding areas are designated by the City as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) under BMC 16.55.470. FWHCAs include “areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association,” as well as “state priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species” (BMC 16.55.470.A).

Great blue heron colonies and bald eagle breeding areas are designated as state priority habitats in Washington. The bald eagle is a Washington state sensitive species and a federal species of



concern. Bald eagles are protected under the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules and the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

For work proposed near FWHCAs, the City requires that the applicant must consult with WDFW and prepare a habitat management plan. Activities proposed within 800 feet of a bald eagle nest site, or within one half mile (2,640 feet) of a nest and in a shoreline foraging area, must comply with the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292) (BMC 16.55.500).

Wildlife Mitigation Requirements

The City’s performance standards for FWHCAs include such measures as:

• establishment of buffer zones,

• preservation of important vegetation,

• limitation of access to habitat areas (including fencing),

• seasonal restrictions on construction activity, and

• monitoring of mitigation activities (BMC 16.55.490.C).

Mitigation should achieve equivalent or greater functions.

Development proposed within a FWHCA or buffer associated with a state or federally listed species requires a management plan prepared in consultation with WDFW. Bald eagle habitat is to be protected in accordance with the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (BMC 16.55.500.A).

The City has consulted with WDFW on timing restrictions for construction of the Post Point WWTP improvements and has incorporated these recommendations into the mitigation plan described below. A bald eagle management plan has been prepared for the project and will be submitted to WDFW for review (Appendix C).

6.1 Impac ts to Grea t Blue Heron Habita t

The project would result in three types of potential impacts to great blue heron breeding habitat: 1) temporary disturbance during construction, 2) the permanent addition of new WWTP structures, with associated activity closer to the nest sites; and 3) the potential addition of a permanent trail and associated dog and human activities closer to the nest sites.

6.1.1 Cons truc tion Dis turbance

Construction of the project would require the use of heavy machinery and equipment, including a truck-mounted crane. Construction work would likely occur on various parts of the project site for a period of up to 30 months. The work would temporarily increase the level of noise, dust,



lighting, and human activity at the site, resulting in greater disturbance of wildlife. If this activity occurs during the breeding season, it is possible that it could cause great blue herons to fail to breed at the site or abandon their nests or young. The construction activities of greatest concern are those located closer to the nesting sites than the existing WWTP facilities (currently approximately 250 feet from the closest active heron nest). The new secondary clarifier would be located within 100 feet of the heron colony core (Figure 4; Figure 5).

6.1.2 Permanent S truc tures Clos e r to Nes t S ite s

The 2003 Post Point Heron Colony Management Plan (Appendix D) recommended a buffer of 100 feet from the core of the heron nesting colony (Figure 4) (Nahkeeta Northwest, 2003). This buffer was intended as a “no entry zone” to limit human disturbance of heron breeding activity. The City placed fencing and signage near the eastern edge of this buffer to restrict access.

As described earlier, in order for the WWTP to function properly the new secondary clarifier must be located in line with the existing clarifier structures as shown in Figure 4. Therefore the permanent placement of the new clarifier will result in unavoidable encroachment into the eastern part of the 100-foot heron colony buffer. The project would result in the loss of 5,790 square feet of heron buffer area. The new secondary clarifier would be located approximately 75 feet closer to the heron colony core than the existing clarifier structures, and approximately 50 feet closer than the existing gravel trail (Figure 4).

Great blue herons have been observed using the existing clarifier structures as perch sites during staging, the period immediately before the nesting season begins (Nahkeeta Northwest, 2008). It is unknown whether the herons would be tolerant of the new secondary clarifier or use the new structure as an additional staging area.

The new clarifier would eliminate a section of the gravel loop trail around the WWTP. The public has expressed a desire to replace the trail segment. The City has considered building a replacement trail around the west side of the new clarifier (Figure 3). (This new trail is included in the previous discussion of wetland impacts.) However, because of concerns about the project’s potential effects on the heron colony, the City has committed to monitoring the heron colony following completion of the project before determining whether long-term public access adjacent to sensitive areas can be accommodated. If this portion of the trail is replaced at some time in the future, it will be designed to minimize disturbance of the heron colony, in consultation with a professional biologist.

6.2 Impac ts to Bald Eagle Habita t

The project would result in three types of potential impacts to bald eagle breeding habitat: 1) temporary disturbance during construction, 2) the permanent addition of new WWTP structures and activities closer to the nest sites; and 3) the potential addition of a permanent trail and associated dog and human activities closer to the nest sites.



6.2.1 Cons truc tion Dis turbance

Construction of the project would require the use of heavy machinery and equipment, including a truck-mounted crane. Construction work would likely occur on various parts of the project site for a period of up to 30 months. The work would temporarily increase the level of noise, dust, lighting, and human activity at the site, resulting in greater disturbance of wildlife. If this activity occurs during the breeding season, it is possible that it could cause bald eagles to fail to breed at the site or abandon their nests or young. The construction activities of greatest concern are those located closer to the nesting sites than the existing WWTP facilities (a distance of approximately 300 feet from the bald eagle nest). The new secondary clarifier would be located just beyond this 300-foot distance (see Figure 4).

6.2.2 Permanent S truc tures Clos e r to Nes t S ite s

As explained earlier, in order for the WWTP to function properly the new secondary clarifier must be located in line with the existing clarifier structures as shown in Figure 4. Therefore the new clarifier will be located immediately east of the 300-foot bald eagle buffer.

6.3 Wildlife Mitiga tion P lan - Grea t Blue Heron


The mitigation sequencing steps described earlier for wetland impacts (Section 5.3) would also minimize impacts to wildlife. The City is also proposing measures to minimize disturbance of great blue heron breeding activities during construction; see Section 6.3.4 for discussion.

6.3.2 Permanent Tra il Clos ure

The City proposes to permanently close part of the trail along the south side of the Post Point lagoon (Figure 4). This will benefit heron habitat by reducing human disturbance near breeding and roosting areas. This part of the trail and associated fencing will be removed and the former trail footprint will be planted with native vegetation to provide additional areas for habitat enhancement (discussed below).

It is possible that the trail located west of the WWTP facilities could also be permanently closed, depending on the outcome of post-construction monitoring of the heron colony (see Section 6.1.2).

6.3.3 Habita t Enhancement

To improve onsite habitat for herons, native vegetation will be installed in Wetland A and along the southwestern side of the Post Point lagoon (Figure 4). As described in Section 5.3.2, additional estuarine wetland will be created along the lagoon shoreline, which will increase the amount of intertidal foraging area available for herons on the site.



Portions of Wetland A will be planted with native woody species to help screen the new secondary clarifier from the heron and eagle nest areas. The wetland creation area will be planted with native salt-tolerant species. A portion of the habitat enhancement area southwest of the lagoon (Figure 4) will be planted with native herb species to create a meadow area for heron foraging. Native conifers will be inter-planted on the forested slope southwest of Wetland A to provide future perching and nesting sites for heron and eagle (Figure 4).

6.3.4 Cons truc tion Timing and Methods

To reduce potential disturbance of breeding great blue herons during construction, the City has identified some construction restriction goals. The City will limit the construction activities described below during the period from February 1 through August 31.

The City will restrict the timing of construction activities occurring within 300 feet of active heron nests during the heron nesting season. The great blue heron nesting season is from February 1 to August 31.

In order to minimize impacts to breeding herons, the following timing restrictions will be imposed on construction activities:

• Outside the heron nesting season (September 1-January 31) construction activities can occur without restriction anywhere within the project construction limits;

• During the heron nesting season (February 1-August 31) construction activities will be limited within specific distances from active nests, as described below (Figure 5):

o Exterior construction activities involving power tools or heavy equipment within 100 feet of the heron colony core will occur only outside of the heron nesting season (September 1-January 31).

o Exterior construction activities that are crucial to construction timing/schedules and located between 100 feet from the heron colony core and 300 feet of active nests will be allowed throughout the year; however efforts to limit this activity to the time period when herons are absent (September 1-January 31) and to the least sensitive portions of the nesting period (May1-July 1) shall be made.

o Construction activities beyond 300 feet from active nests will be allowed throughout the year.

If a situation arises during construction that necessitates action within 100 feet of the heron colony core within the restricted time periods, the contractor will immediately contact the project biologist prior to commencing the activity. The biologist will consult with WDFW about the appropriate course of action.

Between February 1 and August 31, when construction is occurring within 300 feet of an active heron nest, the contractor will be in contact with the project biologist. During this time period the



contractor will work with the biologist so that when feasible, construction activities can be timed to take place during the least sensitive periods of the nesting period.

To further reduce potential disturbance of herons, the portion of the trail system located within 300 feet of active nests on the WWTP site will be closed during construction (Figure 4).

Whenever possible, the contractor will use construction equipment and methods that have the least potential to disturb breeding herons and eagles. For example, the City is proposing to auger-cast piles instead of driving the piles needed to support new WWTP facilities. Pile driving is one of the most disruptive construction methods and will be avoided as much as possible during project construction.

6.3.5 Long-Term Monitoring

The City has retained a biologist (Ann Eissinger of Nahkeeta Northwest) to monitor breeding activity at the Post Point great blue heron colony for the past decade. The City will continue the monitoring program during construction and for at least two years following completion of the project.

6.4 Wildlife Mitiga tion P lan- Bald Eagle


The mitigation sequencing steps described earlier for wetland impacts (Section 5.3) would also minimize impacts to wildlife. The City is also proposing measures to minimize disturbance of bald eagle and great blue heron breeding activities during construction; see Section 6.3.4 for discussion.

6.4.2 Permanent Tra il Clos ure

The City proposes to permanently close the portion of the trail along the south side of the Post Point lagoon (Figure 4). This will benefit eagle habitat by reducing human disturbance near breeding and roosting areas. This part of the trail will be removed to provide additional areas for habitat enhancement (discussed below).

It is possible that the trail located west of the WWTP facilities could also be permanently closed, depending on the outcome of post-construction monitoring of the heron colony (see Section 6.1.2).

6.4.3 Habita t Enhancement

To improve onsite habitat for eagles, native vegetation will be installed in Wetland A and along the southwestern side of the Post Point lagoon (Figure 4). As described in Section 5.3.2,



additional estuarine wetland will be created along the lagoon shoreline, which will increase the amount of intertidal habitat for eagle prey species including waterfowl and fish on the site.

Portions of Wetland A will be planted with native woody species to help screen the new secondary clarifier from the heron and eagle nest areas. The wetland creation area will be planted with native salt-tolerant species. A portion of the habitat enhancement area southwest of the lagoon (Figure 4) will be planted with native tree species. Native conifers will be inter-planted on the forested slope southwest of Wetland A to provide future perching and nesting sites for eagles.

6.4.4 Cons truc tion Timing and Methods

To reduce potential disturbance of breeding bald eagles during construction, the City has identified some construction restriction goals. The City will limit the construction activities described below during the period from February 1 through August 31. Note that this timing limit is greater than the eagle nesting period because timing restrictions need to accommodate the longer heron nesting period (see Section 6.3). During this period, construction work within 300 feet of the nest site will be limited to low intensity activity that limits noise and does not involve heavy equipment, such as interior finishing work using hand held power tools. Exterior construction activities involving power tools or heavy equipment will not occur during this period.

The City will restrict the timing of construction activities occurring within 300 feet of the bald eagle nest location; this is the approximate distance from the nest to existing tolerated activity. This 300-foot buffer is approximately co-incident with the existing 100-foot buffer for the great blue heron colony (see Figure 4).

The bald eagle nesting season is from February 1 to July 31; no exterior construction should occur during this time period within the 300-foot eagle buffer area. This timing restriction will apply to work on the new secondary clarifier only, as it is the only construction work proposed within this distance from the nest. Work within this area can occur from September 1 to January 31. If a situation arises during construction that necessitates action within this portion of the project site during the February 1 through August 31 restricted time period, the contractor will immediately contact the project biologist prior to commencing the activity. The biologist will consult with WDFW about the appropriate course of action.

Between February 1 and August 31, when construction is occurring within 300 feet of an active heron nest, the contractor will be in contact with the project biologist. During this time period the contractor will work with the biologist so that when feasible, construction activities can be timed to take place during the least sensitive periods of the nesting period.

To further reduce potential disturbance of eagles, the trail system on the WWTP site located within 300 feet of active nests will be closed during construction (Figure 4) at a minimum.

Whenever possible, the contractor will use construction equipment and methods that have the least potential to disturb breeding herons and eagles. For example, the City is proposing to



auger-cast piles instead of driving the piles needed to support new WWTP facilities. Pile driving is one of the most disruptive construction methods and will be avoided as much as possible during project construction.

6.4.5 Long-Term Monitoring

The City has retained a biologist (Ann Eissinger of Nahkeeta Northwest) to monitor breeding activity at the Post Point great blue heron colony for the past decade. The City will continue the monitoring program during construction and will continue monitoring for at least two years following completion of construction. In addition to heron activity, Nahkeeta Northwest will also record observations of bald eagle activity in the vicinity of the Post Point WWTP.

7.0 MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION

This section describes the proposed methods to construct and install the estuarine wetland creation area, Wetland A enhancement area, and stream crossing restoration area. Drawing sheets referenced in this section are provided in Appendix E.

7.1 Es tuarine Wetland Crea tion

7.1.1 Grading and S ite Prepara tion

Heavy equipment (an excavator) will be used to excavate the upland shoreline area adjacent to the southwestern portion of Post Point Lagoon. The goal is to lower the shoreline to elevations that will allow tidal inundation, in order to create 11,255 square feet of estuarine wetland (Sheet 5, Appendix E).

Mean higher high water (MHHW) in Bellingham Bay is at approximately 8 feet elevation (NAVD 88). The average low water in the lagoon is around 5 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW); a sill below the railroad tracks at the lagoon entrance prevents the lagoon from fully draining (LaCroix pers. comm. 2011). The grading plan maximizes the area between 6 and 9 feet above MLLW, as this is the range of elevations where estuarine wetland generally occurs in the northern part of the lagoon.

Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of upland soil is anticipated to be removed from the wetland creation area immediately adjacent to the existing shore of the lagoon. In addition, approximately 165 cubic yards of gravel and compacted soil will be removed to decommission the nearby portion of the pedestrian trail, which will be permanently closed (Figure 3). This material will be trucked offsite for disposal at a licensed facility.

Several large logs were placed in the proposed shoreline excavation area as part of previous voluntary restoration work. These logs will be relocated to another upland shoreline area adjacent to the lagoon prior to excavation.



Following excavation of the wetland creation area, the contractor will perform final grading to achieve the desired elevation contours. After removal of the gravel trail surface, the subsoil beneath the trail will be decompacted and amended with 6 inches of topsoil. No soil amendments are proposed in the wetland creation area, as the tide is expected to deliver and sort sediment, sand, gravel, and cobbles in this area over time.

7.1.2 Planting

The mitigation plan proposes three planting zones in this area (Sheets 8 and 9, Appendix E):

• Wetland creation area (salt marsh): Salt-tolerant emergent wetland species will be installed in the wetland creation area between approximately 6 and 9 feet elevation.

• Upland (beach) meadow: Salt-tolerant upland herbaceous species will be installed above 9 feet elevation, around the upper edges of the wetland creation area and along the decommissioned trail.

• Shrub shoreline: Diverse native shrub species will be planted along the decommissioned trail corridor, both to improve wildlife habitat and to discourage human entry to the mitigation site.

Plant materials are anticipated to include emergent plugs, seed mix, and containerized woody plants. Plants will be inspected by a biologist or landscape architect to confirm plant species and health prior to installation. Plant material will be installed or applied by hand.

7.1.3 Staging and Sequenc ing

Heavy equipment used to install the wetland creation area will be staged, maintained, and fueled a minimum of 100 feet from any onsite wetlands or water bodies.

The City desires the excavation of the wetland creation area to occur before construction begins on the secondary clarifier. This will allow heavy equipment to use the portion of the existing pedestrian trail running through the proposed clarifier footprint as part of the access route to the wetland creation area.

The following construction sequence is anticipated for installation of the wetland creation area; these steps may be modified based on input from the contractor. Work will occur during approved fish windows (July 16-October 14) and when the tide is out to allow work to occur in the dry.

1. Install temporary streamflow diversion and remove existing wooden footbridge over stream. Replace footbridge with a temporary bridged equipment crossing (see Section 7.2).

2. Install sediment fence or other approved erosion control measures around the excavation area.



3. Clearly mark the limits of the work area, including existing restoration plantings south of the work area and shoreline vegetation to be retained.

4. Remove the existing split-rail fence along the portion of the trail to be permanently removed.

5. Excavate the shoreline within the wetland creation area. Because the excavated material may contain fill and/or weed seeds, it will likely be unsuitable for reuse in the mitigation project and will be trucked offsite for disposal.

6. Remove and revegetate the portion of the trail within the area labeled as “trail closure (permanent)” on Figure 3. After the gravel trail surface is removed, decompact the underlying soils and then apply and till in 6 inches of imported topsoil. This treatment will occur along the entire 6-foot-wide trail surface from the railroad tracks east/northeast to the junction with the second trail. In order to avoid driving equipment over the decompacted soil, the trail will be divided into short work segments (e.g., 20 feet long). Both the decompaction and topsoil placement/tilling will be completed in one segment before moving equipment east to complete the next segment. After the gravel removal, decompaction, and topsoil placement are complete between the railroad tracks and the stream crossing, equipment will be moved east across the stream and the temporary crossing removed (see Section 7.2 – Stream Crossing). The contractor will then complete the trail removal, decompaction and topsoil placement/tilling along the rest of the trail between the stream crossing and the junction point with the second trail just west of the existing clarifier (Figure 3). Remove erosion control measures (e.g., silt fencing) and construction fencing.

7. Install plants (see previous section).

8. Remove temporary stream crossing and restore the stream channel and banks (see next section).

7.2 Stream Cros s ing

7.2.1 Site Prepara tion and Bridge Remova l

Prior to removing the existing footbridge over the stream, the contractor will temporarily divert (pipe) the streamflow around the work area, as follows. Cofferdams will be placed in the stream channel, both upstream and downstream of the work area. A block net will be placed above the upper cofferdam to prevent fish from entering the work area. Under the supervision of a biologist, streamflow will be pumped from the channel above the upstream cofferdam and below the block net, into a screened pipe. Any fish found between the block net and the upper cofferdam will be removed by the biologist and relocated downstream below the work area. The pumped flows will be discharged from the pipe back to the stream, at a location downstream of the lower cofferdam. This will serve to isolate the work area from streamflows, prevent injury to fish, and minimize sedimentation in the stream. Working from the streambank, heavy equipment



will be used to remove the bridge supports and planking. These will be disposed offsite at a landfill or reused by the City for other projects.

7.2.2 Tempora ry Equipment Cros s ing

Following removal of the bridge, the streamflow diversion will remain in place until the temporary equipment crossing is installed. The crossing will consist of metal plates supported by steel I-beams placed perpendicular to the stream channel. A ramp made of hog fuel (wood chips) or similar material will be placed at both ends of the crossing, to provide a slope suitable for equipment to drive onto the metal plates. Once the temporary crossing is installed, the silt fencing will be removed and streamflow allowed to return to the channel.

7.2.3 Stream Res tora tion

After work is completed in the wetland creation area (Section 7.1), the temporary stream crossing will be removed. The City does not intend to replace the footbridge; instead the stream channel and banks will be restored. Native woody vegetation will be installed along the streambanks (Sheets 8 and 9, Appendix E).

7.3 Wetland A Enhancement

7.3.1 Staging and Sequenc ing

Installation of native plantings in Wetland A will occur after construction of the new secondary clarifier is complete. Plants will be installed and mulched during the rainy season (generally October through March).

7.3.2 Site Prepara tion

Minimal site preparation is anticipated for this enhancement area. Soils in portions of Wetland A near the new clarifier may be compacted by construction equipment access, although this will be minimized as described in Section 5.1.3. These areas will be decompacted as necessary prior to installing plants. Any large areas of bare soil will be seeded with a native wetland emergent seed mix.

7.3.3 Planting

Plantings in the Wetland A enhancement area will include a combination of woody and low-growing herbaceous species (Sheets 7 and 9, Appendix E). Low-growing plants will be installed along the alignment of the future relocated trail west of the clarifier, to provide for sight distance and safety of future potential trail users. Woody plants will be installed throughout the rest of the wetland. Plant materials are anticipated to include containerized material and potentially plugs and seed mix. These will be inspected by a biologist or landscape architect to confirm plant species and health prior to installation. Plants will be installed using hand tools.



A layer of wood fiber mulch 4 to 6 inches deep will be applied in a ring around each installed woody plant. The mulch will help suppress weeds and maintain soil moisture.

8.0 GOALS, OBJ ECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

This section provides goals, objectives, and performance standards for the mitigation project. The goal of the mitigation plan is to provide for no net loss of wetland area or wetland/buffer function as a result of the project. This is assumed to occur through achievement of the following objectives:

• Create approximately 11,255 square feet of estuarine wetland area adjacent to Post Point Lagoon;

• Enhance approximately 20,393 square feet of upland buffer southwest of the lagoon by removing an existing trail and establishing a diverse native plant community; and

• Enhance approximately 37,856 square feet of Wetland A through establishment of a more diverse native plant community.

The mitigation areas will be monitored for success for a minimum of five years following complete installation. Specific performance standards and success criteria have been developed to determine whether the restoration plan has met these goals and objectives. The restoration plan will be deemed successful if the following performance standards and success criteria have been met.

Wetland Hydrology

To determine if wetland hydrology is present in the estuarine wetland creation area, the City will install and survey a staff gauge. Measurements from the onsite gauge will be correlated with data from the Bellingham tide gauge to assess tide elevations at the site. The following criterion applies during Years 1 and 2 of the project:

Evidence of regular tidal inundation in the wetland creation area through tide gauge readings and other indicators such as wrack lines.



Vegetation

To determine if vegetative diversity, vegetation cover, and habitat complexity are developing, the success criteria shown in Table 7 apply to the wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement areas.

How quickly vegetation becomes established within the wetland creation area will depend on several factors that cannot be exactly predicted. For example, winter storms may scour the area and set back vegetation development. Colonization of the newly excavated area by native salt marsh species is likely, based on what has happened in the restoration areas at the northern end of the lagoon. However, the rate of volunteer colonization is uncertain. Therefore, the performance standards for the wetland creation area are based on a baseline percent cover during Year 1, which will be largely achieved through the survival of installed plugs. For subsequent years, the goal is for the area of vegetation to expand compared to this baseline, but an exact percent cover for the future is not proposed.

Protection of Site

To determine whether the site is being adequately protected from intrusion:

All debris such as trash and tires shall be removed at least annually.

Mitigation area fencing and signage shall remain intact as installed. Additional signage may be added in order to better publicize and explain the restoration efforts.



Table 7. Vegetation Success Criteria Mitigation Area Year 1 Year 3 Year 5

Estuarine wetland creation area At least 5% cover by native salt-tolerant wetland species.

Increase in cover of native salt-tolerant wetland species compared to Year 1.

Increase in cover of native salt-tolerant wetland species compared to Year 3.

Upland buffer adjacent to wetland creation area and along decommissioned trail

At least 30% cover by native herbaceous species.

100% survival of installed woody plants as determined by comprehensive plant count (contractor’s guarantee period).


90% survival of installed woody plants within representative plots. Can include desirable native volunteers.


At least 30% total native woody cover.

Wetland A enhancement area At least two woody and two herbaceous native species present.


100% survival of installed plants as determined by comprehensive plant count (contractor’s guarantee period).

At least three woody and three herbaceous native species present.


90% survival of installed plants within representative plots. Can include desirable native volunteers.

At least three woody and three herbaceous native species present.




Mitigation Area Year 1 Year 3 Year 5

All mitigation areas Non-native invasive species cover will not exceed a total of 10% across the mitigation areas.

This includes, at a minimum, Whatcom County Noxious Weed Control Board-listed Class A noxious weeds and reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, poison hemlock, bindweed, climbing nightshade, non-native knotweeds, and non-native blackberry.

Same as Year 1. Same as Year 1.



9.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE

This section describes the proposed monitoring and maintenance program for the Post Point mitigation project.

A pre-construction meeting will be held for the biologist or landscape architect to advise on site preparation. An as-built inspection will be conducted to record the results of the wetland creation and wetland/buffer enhancement plantings. The mitigation areas will be monitored for success for five years following complete installation.

Monitoring of mitigation success will begin upon City acceptance of the as-built or record drawing, and continue for five years. A professional biologist or wetland specialist will perform all monitoring. Construction monitoring will occur during the grading and planting to ensure that the contractor is following the design elements of this mitigation plan, and that temporary erosion and sediment control measures are effective at protecting wetlands and other vegetated areas on the site. Post-construction monitoring will include assessment of both vegetative success and successful establishment of wetland conditions.

During the initial site visit the biologist will verify the as-built conditions, inspect the plants, recommend replacement if necessary, and establish sample plots and photo point locations. Permanent plots for monitoring will be selected to represent the planting areas. The appropriate number and location of plots will be determined on site during the as-built site inspection. Permanent photo points will be located to provide a representative visual documentation of site progress. The photo points and sample plots will be shown on the planting plan.

The site will be monitored according to the schedule and methods shown in Table 8. During each year of the monitoring period, the site will be monitored in the early spring for wetland hydrology indicators, and for the presence of non-native invasive vegetation. This will allow time for maintenance of the site if needed to remove weeds during the early growing season before seed set, and to remove trash and debris if necessary. A second site visit in the late summer or early fall will be made to assess vegetation cover and survival against the project performance standards.



Table 8. Monitoring Program

Monitoring Element Location & Methods Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Wetland hydrology Estuarine wetland creation area:

Evidence of regular tidal inundation in the wetland creation area through tide gauge readings and other indicators such as wrack lines.

Early Spring Early Spring NA NA NA

Wetland area Estuarine wetland creation area:

Delineation of wetland creation area boundaries to determine size.

NA NA NA NA Early Spring

Vegetation cover and establishment

Wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement areas:

Percent cover data collected within monitoring plots (Years 1, 3 and 5 only).

General observations of installed plant health (all years).

Late Summer or Early Fall

NA Late Summer or Early Fall





Vegetation survival Wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement areas:

Comprehensive count of installed plants (Year 1 only).

Count of installed plants within monitoring plots (Year 3 only).

General observations of installed plant health (all years).




Non-native invasive vegetation

Wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement areas:

Percent cover data collected within monitoring plots (Years 1, 3, and 5 only).

General observations of invasive species (all years).

Early Spring


Early Spring Early Spring


Early Spring Early Spring


Wildlife use Wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement areas:

Casual observations of wildlife – visual sightings, calls, tracks, scat, other sign.

During Vegetation/ Hydrology Monitoring

Visits


Visits


Visits


Visits


Visits




Site protection Wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement areas:

Observations of fencing and signage.

Notes of human intrusion (trash, trampling of plants, vandalism).


Visits


Visits


Visits


Visits


Visits



9.1 Monitoring Reports

An as-built or record drawing will be provided to the City within 90 days of mitigation installation.

Monitoring reports will be prepared during Years 1, 3, and 5 to document the findings of the monitoring site visits. An explanation of plant success or failures and representative photographs will be included in the monitoring reports. Any maintenance or contingency actions, if needed, will be noted.

During Years 2 and 4, reporting will be limited to an informal memo or email to the City with recommendations for mitigation site maintenance. No formal monitoring reports will be required during these years.

9.2 Maintenance

Maintenance of the mitigation areas will begin after acceptance of the as-built report and continue for five years. After initial planting acceptance by the professional biologist, the landscaping contractor will be responsible for plant survival for a period of one year. After this period, maintenance will be performed by City personnel. Maintenance will include, but is not limited to:

• Installation of additional plantings if the combination of installed plants and regrowth of native volunteer species does not meet the minimum performance standards discussed above.

• Removing invasive, non-native plant species in the planting areas. Examples of undesirable non-native plants include Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, Scot’s broom, knotweed, and reed canarygrass. No more than 10 percent vegetative cover of undesirable non-native invasive plant species will be allowed in graded and planted areas.

• Stabilizing eroded areas using bioengineering techniques that are appropriate if mulching, hydroseeding or other standard erosion control methods fail.

• Irrigation of the upland meadow area will likely be required during at least the first growing season to ensure seed germination.

10.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN

The City will implement a contingency plan in conjunction with the permitting authorities if the mitigation site fails to meet the success criteria. The above-described maintenance section may remedy specific problems such as the failure of any species specified by the planting plan, before a formal contingency plan is required. Contingency plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to remedy the aspect of the restoration that does not meet the goals and objectives of the mitigation



plan. For example, if plant success rates are not meeting the success criteria even after maintenance replanting is performed, contingency actions will be enacted.

11.0 LIMITATIONS

Within the limitations of schedule, budget, scope-of-work, and seasonal constraints, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors’ best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.



12.0 REFERENCES

Bohannon, Jennifer. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, La Conner, WA. October 22, 2010, email regarding Post Point WWTP recommendations.

Cantrell & Associates, Inc. 2011. Critical Areas Assessment Report – Wetland Delineation – Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. Prepared for City of Bellingham.

Carollo Engineers. 2010. Pre-application submittal materials provided to City of Bellingham for Post Point WWTP improvements project. October 14, 2010.

City of Bellingham. 2006. City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan (Parametrix).

City of Bellingham. 2009. City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Carollo Engineers).

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Eissinger, Ann. Nahkeeta Northwest. October 18, 2010 – meeting with City, WDFW, Ecology, and consultant staff, Post Point WWTP.

ESA Adolfson. 2009. Post Point great blue heron colony regulatory requirements. Memo to City of Bellingham, October 19, 2009.

Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. August 2004. Ecology publication number 04-06-025. Olympia, WA.

Nahkeeta Northwest. 2003. Post Point Heron Colony Management Plan - 2003. Prepared for City of Bellingham Public Works Department.

Nahkeeta Northwest. 2006. Post Point Heron Colony 2006 Monitoring Annual Report. Prepared for City of Bellingham Public Works Department. December 2006.Nahkeeta Northwest. 2008. Post Point Heron Colony 2008 Monitoring Annual Report. Prepared for City of Bellingham Public Works Department.

Nahkeeta Northwest. 2010. Post Point Great Blue Heron Colony Monitoring Progress Report – May-June 2010.

Nahkeeta Northwest. 2010. Post Point Heron Colony 2010 Monitoring Annual Report. Prepared for City of Bellingham Public Works Department.

Perry, Randall. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 10, 2010 - telephone conversation regarding wetland mitigation requirements.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Approved work windows for fish protection in all marine/estuarine areas excluding the mouth of the Columbia River (Baker Bay). Last



updated March 19, 2010. Available: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/REG/work_windows_-_all_marine_&_estuarine2.pdf. Accessed November 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans.

Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1999. Priority habitats and species management recommendations, Volume IV Birds: Great Blue Heron.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2000. Priority habitats and species management recommendations, Volume IV Birds: Bald Eagle.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species for use to guide site specific management of priority species: Great Blue Heron.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Bald Eagle Protection in Washington State.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010. Priority Habitats and Species GIS mapping and data.

Weil, Kim. Planner, City of Bellingham. 2010. Email regarding stream on Post Point WWTP site, December 3, 2010.

Wilson Engineering, LLC. 2010. City of Bellingham Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Stormwater Design Report (30% Design). Prepared for Carollo Engineers. October 2010.

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/REG/work_windows_-_all_marine_&_estuarine2.pdf�

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/REG/work_windows_-_all_marine_&_estuarine2.pdf�



FIGURES

Post Point Mitigation Plan . 210403

Figure 1Vicinity Map

Bellingham, Washington

SOURCE: City of Bellingham, 2010; Ecology, 2006; NAIP (USDA), 2009 (Aerial)

S:\

GIS

\Pro

jec

ts\2

10

xxx

\21

04

03_

Po

st_

Po

int\

Mxd

\Vic

inity

.mx

d (;

11

/16

/20

10

)

TacomaSeattle

Olympia

Bellingham WHATCOM

Project Location

§̈¦5

BELLINGHAMBAY

CH UC K AN UTBAY

BELLINGHAM

§̈¦5

Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant

LegendProject Location

Streams

Major Roads

City Limits

0 0.5 1

Mileso

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! !!

!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!!

!!

Wetland K

Wetland Rating Unit/Wetland Mosaic

D, E,G, I


A, B, C, J

Wetland H

A

D

B

I

C

J

E

G

U:\

GIS

\GIS

\Pro

jec

ts\2

10

xxx

\210

40

3_

Po

st_

Po

int\

Mx

d\E

xis

ting

_C

on

dit

ion

s_

11x1

7.m

xd

(;

3/7

/201

1)

P o s t P o i n t W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t P l a n t

H e r o n F o r a g i n g A r e a

H e r o n F o r a g i n g A r e a

SOURCE: Bald Eagle, WDFW; Stream, (Cantrell & Associates, 2011; Wilson Engineering, 2009);Floodplain, (Whatcom County, 2004); Heron Boundaries, Roost Tree, (Nahkeeta Northwest); MarineShoreline, Parcels, Aerial Photo (City of Bellingham, 2008, 2010); Wetlands (Cantrell and Associates,2009); Fence (Carollo, 2010)


Figure 2Existing Conditions


0 65 130

Feeto

Legend

Marine Shoreline

Stream

Approximate Stream Location

! ! ! Existing Trails

Stream Buffer (75')

Wetlands (Existing)

Wetland Buffer (50' - 100')

Existing Fence

qp Roost Tree

Heron Colony Core (2010)

Heron Colony Core Buffer (100')

!Ç Bald Eagle Nest

Bald Eagle Nest Buffer (300')

1% Chance Annual Flood

Parcels

Wetland K


D, E,G, I


A, B, C, J

Wetland H

A

D

B

I

C

J

E

G

S:\

GIS

\Pro

ject

s\2

10

xxx\

21

040

3_

Pos

t_P

oin

t\M

xd\W

etla

nd_

Impa

cts_

11x1

7 R

ed

o.m

xd (

AT

R;

6/2

3/2

011

)


SOURCE: Stream, (Cantrell & Associates, 2011; Wilson Engineering, 2009); Existing Trails, MarineShoreline, Parcels, Aerial Photo (City of Bellingham, 2008, 2010); Rain Garden, Wetland Buffer,Stream Buffer, Impacted Wetland Buffer, Impacted Wetland, Wetland Enhancement Area, (ESAAdolfson 2010); Wetlands (Cantrell and Associates, 2009); Fence, Rain Garden (Carollo, 2010); DogPark Loop, Wetlands Proposed (Philbin Group, 2011)


Figure 3Wetland and Buffer Impacts and Conceptual Mitigation Areas


0 65 130

Feeto

Legend

Site Boundary

Marine Shoreline

Stream


Stream Buffer (75')

Wetlands (Existing)

Wetland Buffer (50' - 100')

Buildings (Proposed)

Buildings (Renovation)

Existing Fence

! ! New Fence

Wetlands (Impacted)

Impacted Wetland Buffer Area

Wetland Enhancement Area

Wetlands (Proposed)

Potential Rain Garden/Swale

! ! ! Existing Trails (To Remain Open)

! ! ! Dog Park Loop

Trail Closure (Permanent)

Trail Closure (Potential Future Reroute)

Potential Future Trail Alteration

Parcels

Wetland CreationArea: 11,255 Sq Ft

Wetland A Area: 43,117 Sq FtImpacted Wetland Area: 5,251 Sq FtWetland Enhancement Area: 37,856 Sq Ft

Wetland BArea: 953 Sq FtImpacted Wetland Area: 952 Sq Ft

Wetland GArea: 311 Sq FtImpacted Wetland Area: 311 Sq Ft

RetrofitExistingBuilding

Anaerobic Selector &Activated Sludge Basin

BlowerBuilding

Potential FutureActivated Sludge Basin

Flow Splitter BoxModifications

SecondaryClarifier

MaintenanceBuilding

PEPSModifications

Conifer Interplanting

Existing Restoration Plantings to be Retained

Impacted Heron Buffer: 5,790 Sq Ft

S:\

GIS

\Pro

ject

s\2

10

xxx\

21

040

3_

Pos

t_P

oin

t\M

xd\H

abi

tat_

Impa

cts_

11x1

7.m

xd

(AT

R; 6

/23

/20

11)


H e r o n F o r a g i n g A r e aH e r o n F o r a g i n g A r e a

SOURCE: Bald Eagle, (WDFW 2010); Stream, (Cantrell & Associates, 2011; Wilson Engineering,2009); Heron Boundaries, Roost Tree, (Nahkeeta Northwest); Existing Trails, Marine Shoreline,Parcels, Aerial Photo (City of Bellingham, 2008, 2010); Wetlands (Cantrell and Associates, 2009);Fence, Rain Garden (Carollo, 2010); Dog Park Loop, Wetlands Proposed (Philbin Group, 2011)


Figure 4Habitat Impact and Mitigation Areas


0 65 130

Feeto

Legend

Site Boundary

Marine Shoreline

Shoreline Zone

Stream




! ! New Fence

Existing Fence

qp Roost Tree


Heron ColonyCore Buffer (100')

Impacted Heron Buffer Area

Buffer Enhancement Area

!Ç Bald Eagle Nest


Wetlands (Proposed)

Wetland Enhancement Area


! ! ! ! Existing Trails (To Remain Open)

! ! ! Dog Park Loop

Trail Closure (Potential Future Reroute)

Trail Closure (Permanent)

Parcels


BlowerBuilding



SecondaryClarifier

RetrofitExistingBuilding

MaintenanceBuilding

PEPSModifications

!Ç

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !

!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !

!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

S:\

GIS

\Pro

ject

s\2

10

xxx\

21

040

3_

Pos

t_P

oin

t\M

xd\H

ero

n a

nd

Eag

le N

est

De

tail.

mxd

(A

TR

; 6

/21

/201

1)


SOURCE: Bald Eagle, WDFW, 2010; Stream, (Cantrell & Associates, 2011; Wilson Engineering,2009); Heron Boundaries, Roost Tree, (Nahkeeta Northwest); Heron Nest Locations, MarineShoreline, Parcels, Aerial Photo (City of Bellingham, 2008, 2010); Fence (Carollo, 2010); Dog ParkLoop (Philbin Group, 2011)


Figure 5Heron and Eagle Nest Detail


Legend

Marine Shoreline

Stream


Existing Fence

! ! ! Existing Trails

! ! ! Dog Park Loop



qp Roost Tree

Heron Nests (2010)


Heron Colony Core Buffer (100')

Heron Nests (2010) Buffer (300')

!Ç Bald Eagle Nest



Parcels

0 35 70

Feeto

300' Buffer from 2010 Heron Nests

Retrofit ExistingBuilding


BlowerBuilding



SecondaryClarifier

100' Buffer from 2010 Heron Colony Core

PEPSModifications


ESA Appendix A June 2011

APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS


ESA Page A-1 June 2011

Photo 1. Overview of WWTP and off-leash dog park, looking northwest (Sept. 2010).

Photo 2. Trail along southern side of WWTP, looking east (Sept. 2010).

Photo 3. Vegetation along southern side of WWTP facility, looking north (Sept. 2010).

Photo 4. Walking trail near southeast corner of WWTP property, looking east (Sept. 2010).

Photo 5. Looking southeast along walking trail, west of WWTP (Sept. 2010).

Photo 6. Signs along 100-foot great blue heron buffer fence.


Page A-2 ESA June 2011

Photo 7. Post Point lagoon, looking northwest (Sept. 2010).

Photo 8. Sign posted on fence around lagoon.

Photo 9. Railroad bridge over lagoon inlet/outlet to Bellingham Bay (Sept. 2010).

Photo 10. Looking northeast over wetland creation area and Post Point lagoon toward WWTP (Sept. 2010).

Photo 11. Trail along south side of Post Point lagoon, looking northeast toward WWTP (Sept. 2010).

Photo 12. Bridge over drainage channel (stream) south of lagoon and west of WWTP (Sept. 2010).


ESA Page A-3 June 2011

Photo 13. Drainage channel (stream), looking south from bridge (Sept. 2010).

Photo 14. Looking south over Wetland A (Oct. 2010).

Photo 15. Looking east toward Wetland B (Sept. 2010). Photo 16. Looking east toward Wetland G (Sept. 2010).

Photo 17. Looking west along trail toward railroad tracks (Oct. 2010). This portion of trail will be removed.

Photo 18. Wetland creation area southwest of Post Point lagoon, north of walking trail (Oct. 2010).


ESA Appendix B June 2011

APPENDIX B: BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS

CATHIE CONOLLY, PWS Wetlands Program Manager

Cathie is an experienced project manager with projects ranging from Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Biological Assessments (BAs), to Critical Areas Code updates. She specializes in projects with potential to affect critical areas, the evaluations typically include wetland evaluations, botanical fieldwork, wildlife habitat assessments, and preparing wetland mitigation and enhancement plans. Cathie is accomplished in the study of rare and endangered plants, birds, and other wildlife. She has prepared numerous BAs for plant, fish, mammal, and avian species, and is versed in Endangered Species Act requirements. Cathie is familiar with Best Available Science (BAS) for wetlands, streams, and wildlife, and has provided scientific recommendations to local jurisdictions on Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance. Cathie provides expert witness and testimony related to wetlands and wildlife for public hearings, City council meetings, and other legal proceedings.

Relevant Experience

Northeast Redmond Neighborhood Park Master Plan, Redmond, Washington. Project Manager. ESA delineated wetlands and streams, characterized wildlife habitat areas, and made management recommendations for the Northeast Redmond Neighborhood Park Master Plan. The undeveloped park, located in the City of Redmond, contains wetlands, a salmonid-bearing stream, and regulated wildlife habitat. The Scope of Work for this project included preparation of a wildlife management plan to meet the requirements of the Redmond Municipal Code, and providing input to the master plan. The resulting Master Plan provided for trails, viewing platforms adjacent to the wetlands and streams, forest clearings for play area, and educational signs. BP Cherry Point Facility Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, Whatcom County, WA. Task Leader. ESA conducted a wildlife habitat study of the BP Cherry Point Refinery property. The assessment focused on areas not currently developed for the plant, totaling 2,225 acres. ESA prepared a wildlife habitat report and wildlife management plan to characterize wildlife habitat areas and formulate a management plan to meet the requirements of the Wildlife Habitat Council’s™ Wildlife at Work certification program at the BP Cherry Point Site. The main elements of the management plan elements include: nearshore survey and characterization; great blue heron rookery monitoring and protection; Terrell Creek restoration in conjunction with the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association; wetlands rehabilitation and creation; and waterfowl habitat enhancement. Lafarge North America, Wildlife Habitat Monitoring, Clallam County, WA. Project Manager. Cathie is the project manager for this wildlife habitat monitoring project. Lafarge North America has received the Wildlife at Work certification from the Wildlife Habitat Council for the Twin Rivers site in Clallam County, Washington. This certification is given to industrial clients who use undeveloped corporate lands for wildlife habitat. ESA prepared a wildlife habitat plan and habitat improvement measures.

Education

M.S., Botany, University of Washington

B.S., Botany, University of Washington

B.S., Natural Science and Outdoor Education, University of Vermont

22 Years Experience

Registrations/Certifications

Society of Wetland Scientists, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS)

Certified Wetland Specialist, Pierce County

24-Hour Hazardous Materials Certification Program

Preferred Wetland Consultant, King County.

Washington Department of Transportation Biological Assessment Qualified Senior Author (February 2007)

Completed Western Washington Wetlands Rating System Training, Department of Ecology Coastal Training Program (October 2007)

City of Shoreline Qualified Wetlands Professional

SARA NOLAND Project Scientist, Editor

Sara brings 15 years of experience as a technical editor and biologist. She has training and experience in wetland delineation and functions assessment, the ecology and identification of Northwest plants and wildlife, invasive vegetation identification and control methods, monitoring of restoration and mitigation sites, and critical areas code interpretation and permit review.

Relevant Experience

Tacoma Water Mitigation Monitoring, Tacoma, WA. Biologist. Sara coordinated fieldwork for the monitoring of several mitigation sites for Tacoma Water Department. Two sites were located on the Green River, and the others were located in Auburn, Federal Way, and southern King County. Sara updated the data forms and data collection protocols, performed invasive vegetation monitoring, delineated wetlands, scheduled field crews, and wrote monitoring reports. BP Cherry Point Wildlife at Work Certification, Whatcom County, WA. Biologist. The BP petroleum refinery near Ferndale manages large areas of surrounding property for wildlife habitat. ESA assisted BP in applying for certification from the Wildlife Habitat Council through the Wildlife at Work program. Sara performed a site investigation to evaluate and map habitat types such as wetlands, nearshore areas, and riparian corridors. She completed application forms and supporting reports. BP subsequently received the certification award. White River Trail Wetland Delineation, King County, WA. Wetland Biologist. King County Capital Planning and Development proposes to construct the White River Trail, which would be located on a former railroad line south of the existing Enumclaw Trail and north of the White River. Sara led a field crew to delineate wetlands and streams along the 1-mile-long trail alignment. The crew also completed wetland rating forms using the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Sara completed a natural resource inventory report for the site, addressing streams, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. Canyon Creek and Muck Creek Drainage Improvement Projects, Pierce County, WA. Wetland Biologist. Sara performed wetland delineations and habitat assessments for proposed drainage improvement projects on Canyon and Muck Creeks. She performed wetland ratings using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, and wrote wetland delineation reports meeting Pierce County requirements. She also assisted in writing a wetland mitigation plan for the Canyon Creek project.

Education

B.A., Environmental Journalism, Western Washington University

B.S., Zoology, University of Washington

15 Years of Experience


Wetland Science and Management Certification, University of Washington

Professional Affiliations

Society of Wetland Scientists

Washington Native Plant Society

Society for Ecological Restoration

LIZZIE ZEMKE, PWS Senior Ecologist

Lizzie is a senior project manager and certified Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) with 23 years of experience in critical areas ordinance interpretation, development assistance and scientific peer review. Her scientific expertise includes botany, wetland science, and vegetation mapping in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. She is a senior scientist who has conducted large-scale wetland delineation and mapping projects, habitat assessments, endangered species analyses, and mitigation planning. Lizzie has managed environmental permit requirements and SEPA review for several large public infrastructure projects including LOTT Wastewater Treatment Facility, Burke Gilman Trail Improvements and Lake Haven Utility District projects. Lizzie has worked extensively providing third-party peer review for several cities in western Washington. For example, Lizzie has successfully managed on-call peer review contracts for the City of Kenmore, Federal Way and Kent, providing contract services to assist local governments with development near critical areas. As part of these services, Lizzie has attended pre-application meetings, verified field conditions, reviewed SEPA checklists and provided expert testimony at public hearings. As a scientific expert, Lizzie has also defended several municipalities in lawsuits and appeals involving critical areas. For example, Lizzie assisted Island County with a challenge to its critical areas ordinance related to protection of habitat and federally-listed plant species.

Relevant Experience

City of Kenmore On-Call Environmental Services Contract, WA. Project Manager. Lizzie currently manages an on-call environmental services contract with the City of Kenmore, Washington. Work involves coordinating and conducting third-party reviews of development proposals for compliance with City critical areas regulations. Lizzie’s responsibilities include code interpretation for citizens and City Planners, consultation with developers, engineers, and local citizens; review of wetland delineations, stream classifications, and mitigation plans for development proposals; and preparation of project review letters, and testimony at public hearings. Pacific County On-Call Wetland, Stream, and Wildlife Habitat Contract, WA. Project Manager. Lizzie managed ESA’s on-call contract to provide technical and permitting assistance to the County’s Department of Public Works on County-sponsored projects with the potential to impact critical areas including wetlands, streams, and endangered species habitats. Lizzie provided assistance to the County which included wetland delineations, wetland report preparation, assistance with permit applications, mitigation plan preparation, and preparation of Biological Assessments to satisfy federal Endangered Species Act requirements. Specific projects for which assistance was provided include a road-widening project adjacent to wetlands, bridge replacement over a stream containing federally listed salmonids, and emergency repair of a coastal breakwater structure.

Education

M.S., Forestry, University of Washington

B.S., Botany, University of Washington

23 Years of Experience


Society of Wetland Scientists, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS)

Certified Wetland Specialist, Pierce County

Licensed SCORE Assessor

Professional Affiliations

International Society of Sustainability Professionals

Washington Plant Native Society

Society of Wetland Scientists

Society for Ecological Restoration

Lizzie Zemke, PWS Page 2

Relevant Experience (Continued)

Lake Stevens Sewer District Permitting, Snohomish County, WA. Project Manager. Lizzie served as ESA’s project manager, providing permitting assistance for the Lake Stevens Sewer District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project at the District’s wastewater treatment plant located within the shoreline and 100-year floodplain of Ebey Slough in Snohomish County, Washington. In addition to being located within the shoreline and the 100-year floodplain, the site is also surrounded by expansive areas of palustrine emergent wetlands and is bounded on three sides by Class III streams and potentially fish-bearing agricultural drainage ditches. As part of the process of obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from Snohomish County, ESA prepared a Critical Areas Study (CAS), a Habitat Management Plan (HMP), a Critical Areas Site Plan (CASP), and a mitigation plan for compensating for new impervious surface being placed within a protected Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) associated with a potential bull trout bearing stream. In addition to the standard County permitting procedures, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project was subjected to the County’s Innovative Development Design (IDD) process because the proposed improvements would be encroaching into the FWHCA associated with a bull trout bearing stream. Completion of the County’s IDD process required approval from the Washington Department of Ecology’s Wetlands Section. Wastewater Resources Management Plan EIS for the Cities of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Thurston County (LOTT), Thurston County, WA. Task Manager. Lizzie prepared the plants, animals, wetlands, and fish sections of the programmatic EIS, which evaluated nine potential options for wastewater management and disposal. Alternatives ranged from on-site sewage systems to reclamation, re-use and marine and freshwater disposal. Lizzie later prepared the plants animals and wetland sections for the project-specific EIS for the implementation of a reclaimed water treatment plant and groundwater recharge/constructed wetlands polishing in the Hawks Prairie Basin. Regional Reclaimed Water Conveyance Project, King County, WA. Environmental Scientist. Lizzie evaluated the environmental implications of a proposed reclaimed water treatment plant in the Sammamish Valley intended to provide irrigation water to area parks and golf courses. Efforts included identifying permitting needs and strategies, evaluating different potential conveyance routes, as well as preparing environmental documentation for wetlands, streams, and threatened and endangered species. LOTT Reclaimed Water Satellite Plant and Conveyance System, Thurston County, WA. Task Lead. Lizzie assisted the Lacey Olympia Tumwater and Thurston Wastewater Alliance (LOTT) in site selection, EIS preparation, and environmental permitting, including a biological assessment for federally listed

Lizzie Zemke, PWS Page 3

Relevant Experience (Continued)

species, in support of a reclaimed wastewater facility located in Lacey Washington. Work involved identifying and delineating wetlands, writing SEPA EIS sections, preparing JARPA forms for submittal to permitting agencies, providing documentation for the SERP process, negotiating with resource agency staff in order to obtain necessary permits, assisting design engineers to adjust project in order to reduce permitting timeline and minimize impacts. City of Carnation Wastewater Treatment Plant EIS, WA. Task Lead. Lizzie managed preparation of SEPA EIS sections for fish, wildlife, and wetlands for a proposed new wastewater treatment facility. Work involved identifying and classifying wetlands, streams, and habitat for threatened and endangered species on three different potential treatment plant sites, three potential conveyance route alternatives, and potential discharge option sites. Work also included analysis and comparison of potential impacts and possible mitigation approaches.


ESA Appendix C June 2011

APPENDIX C: BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN

City of Bellingham Post Point WWTP Improvements –Conceptual Mitigation Plan

ESA Adolfson Page C- 1 February 2011

BALD EAGLE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

In accordance with RCW 77.12.655 and WAC 232-12-292

Territory Name and Number: Post Point (#1586)

Applicant Site Location Pending Activity Roy Routhe City of Bellingham Department of Public Works 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225

Whatcom County 370211403538 Township 37N, Range 2 E Sections 11 and 2 200 McKenzie Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225

Upgrades to the existing Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant

BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION

The City of Bellingham’s Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located in the Fairhaven district of Bellingham, Washington. The site is located on the shoreline of Bellingham Bay. The plant was built in 1974 and upgraded in 1993. A great blue heron rookery has been documented on the WWTP site since 2000 (Eissinger, 2003). The City of Bellingham prepared a management plan for the rookery in 2003 and has conducted monitoring on the rookery through 2010 (Nahkeeta Northwest, 2010). A bald eagle nest is located on the south side of the rookery within the 100-foot colony buffer. The specific location of the eagle nest has not been observed because the site is densely vegetated and located on a ridge above the WWTP.

The proposed project will upgrade the Post Point WWTP by expanding the core secondary process to increase the plant's Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) treatment capacity. The plant is near capacity and risks violating permit requirements if improvements are not completed within the proposed time frame. The project includes construction of a chemical facility to enhance solids removal during primary treatment; modifications to existing primary effluent and Return Activated Sludge (RAS) pump stations and flow splitting structures; a new anaerobic selector basin; additional activated sludge basins and associated mechanical facilities; a fourth secondary clarifier; a new blower building to provide oxygen to the biological process; retrofits to the existing activated sludge basins for conversion to air; and modifications and improvements to existing electrical and control systems.

FACTORS CONSIDERED

1) Landowner goals were considered through plans received and discussions with the landowner or landowners agents.

CONDITIONS

The following conditions apply to protect bald eagles and their habitat:

1. Maintain a buffer between project activities and the bald eagle nest equal to distance from the nest to existing tolerated activity (260 feet). An existing

City of Bellingham Post Point WWTP Improvements -Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Page C-2 ESA Adolfson February 2011

pedestrian trail may be replaced after construction approximately 10 feet from the new clarifier and approximately 50 feet closer to the nest, but not within line-of-sight of the nest, located approximately 150 feet down-slope of the nest.

2. Restrict the timing of construction activities occurring within 300 feet of the bald eagle nest location (this is the approximate distance from the nest to existing tolerated activity). Note: this 300-foot buffer aligns approximately with the existing 100-foot buffer for the great blue heron colony. The bald eagle nesting season is from February 1 to July 31; no exterior construction should occur during this time period within the 300-foot buffer area. Work within this buffer area can occur from August 1 to January 31. However, if a situation arises during construction that necessitates action within this portion of the project site during the February 1 through July 31 nesting season, the contractor will immediately contact the project biologist prior to commencing the activity. The biologist will consult with WDFW about the appropriate course of action.

3. Lower intensity activity that limits noise and does not involve large scale site manipulation, such as preparation and finishing work limited to the interior of structures, would be allowed during the nesting season. Maintain established landscape buffers that screen the activity from the nest; increase the existing buffer adjacent to the site of the proposed secondary clarifier.

4. Continue to implement the management conditions in the Great Blue Heron Management Plan for the site (2003).

5. All trees removed for construction (approximately 31) will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio within the buffer of the eagle nest in accordance with the Wetland and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (ESA, 2010) prepared for this project.

DURATION OF PROTECTION

This Plan applies to the landowner who signs the Plan. Since eagles return to the same traditional use areas each year, the conditions of this Plan shall apply for the length of the project, unless a breeding territory has been unoccupied for five consecutive years. Please contact WDFW if the eagles change the location of their nest. Do not assume that the conditions of this Plan no longer apply.

REVIEW AND AMENDMENT

This Plan will be subject to the following review and amendment procedures. The Plan may be reviewed periodically by Department and the landowner to determine whether: 1) the Plan requires amendment in response to changing eagle and landowner circumstances; or 2) the terms of the Plan comply with applicable laws and regulations; or 3) the parties to the Plan are complying with its terms.

DANGER TREES

Except for a tree that presents imminent danger to the safety or property of individuals, a report from a certified arborist, indicating the health of the tree and the need to remove the tree, shall be submitted to WDFW prior to cutting the danger tree.

City of Bellingham Post Point WWTP Improvements –Conceptual Mitigation Plan

ESA Adolfson Page C- 3 February 2011

APPEAL PROCEDURE

In addition to the provisions of WAC 232-12-292 (7.1-7.3), the landowner may request a formal appeal of WDFW actions according to the Administrative procedures Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW and the Model Rules of Procedure, Chapter 10.08 WAC. Such a request shall be filed with the Department within 20 days of receipt of the contested WDFW decision. The appeal request shall clearly state the relief sought and the grounds for the appeal.

COMPLIANCE

Failure to comply with this Plan constitutes a misdemeanor as set forth in RCW 77.15.130. However, compliance with this plan does not ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act or other federal, state or local laws. This Plan applies only to the project activities listed above. Any other proposals may be subject to a different set of conditions. It is the landowner’s responsibility to notify the Department of any new proposed land use activities.

If the plan is acceptable, sign and return original signature pages to WDFW at address below

WDFW Approval:

Landowner signature (date)

Jennifer Bohannon (date)

Russell Link (date) Landowner address Regional Wildlife Program Manager

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Attn: Jennifer Bohannon P.O. Box 1100 La Conner, WA 98257

City of Bellingham Post Point WWTP Improvements -Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Page C-4 ESA Adolfson February 2011

REFERENCES

Eissinger, Ann. 2003. Post Point Heron Colony Management Plan 2003. Prepared for the City of Bellingham Department of Public Works, Bellingham, Washington.

Nahkeeta Northwest. 2010. Post Point Great Blue Heron Colony Monitoring Progress Report – May-June 2010.

ESA Adolfson (ESA). 2010. Post Point Treatment Plant Expansion, Wetland and Wildlife Mitigation Plan.


ESA Appendix D June 2011

APPENDIX D: 2010 GREAT BLUE HERON MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT

2003 HERON COLONY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Nahkeeta Northwest City of Bellingham 7/19/2010 Post Point Heron Monitoring

1

Nahkeeta

northwest P.O. Box 176 bow Washington 98232 360-770-6012

City of BellinghamCity of BellinghamCity of BellinghamCity of Bellingham

Post Point Post Point Post Point Post Point Great Blue HeronGreat Blue HeronGreat Blue HeronGreat Blue Heron Colony Colony Colony Colony MonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoring

progress reportprogress reportprogress reportprogress report:::: MayMayMayMay----JuneJuneJuneJune 20 20 20 2010101010

INTRODUCTION The Post Point Great Blue Heron Colony, located near Fairhaven in south Bellingham, is the only known heron nesting colony associated with Bellingham Bay and the City of Bellingham and is considered a sensitive breeding site and habitat area. Currently there are only 4 known active colonies in Whatcom County including Port Point. The Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) is recognized as a Priority Species in Washington State and is managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Both the herons and their nesting habitat are protected as a Priority Species. The Post Point heron colony was established in 2000, with 6 nests occupying 5 nest trees on the current site. Between 2000 and 2006 the colony rapidly expanded to peak at 37 nests occupying 15 trees. As of 2007 the colony decreased in size to 27 nests and some nest trees were lost in winter storms, reducing the number to 12 trees. In the past two years, 2008 and 2009, the colony appeared normal in the early season, but greatly reduced in number. A total of 9 active nests were confirmed in the colony through May with live young in the nests. In both years (2008-009) the colony has abandoned prior to fledging of young, resulting in zero productivity. Abandonment occurred in 2008 in late June and late May of 2009. As of June 30, 2010 the herons at Post Point are actively nesting and raising young at the Post Point heron colony. The 2010 Post Point Great Blue Heron monitoring includes three primary components: general monitoring which focuses on colony activity including breeding chronology, predation and disturbance; productivity which focuses on nestling numbers and fledgling success; and nest survey which will provide an update on the number of nests and nest trees utilized during 2010. In addition, some foraging observations will be made to document foraging activity, locations and any disturbances related to foraging sites. Public education is an important aspect of this work and will be incorporated as opportunities arise. Included in the monitoring plan are periodic progress reports, both informal communiqués and formal reports. At the end of the monitoring year, an annual report will be prepared and will provide the City with a complete report of the heron’s nesting activity for 2010.


2

The implementation of the monitoring plan includes on-site field observation and data collection conducted by Ann Eissinger and assistant Jaime Welfelt, of Nahkeeta Northwest Wildlife Services based in Bow Washington. Ms Eissinger has over fifteen years experience monitoring Great Blue Herons and is expert in their ecology, behavior, colony management and conservation. She is also the author of the 2003 Post Point Heron Colony Management Plan, and 2005 Post Point Heron Colony Baseline Study prepared for the City of Bellingham, Department of Public Works. The Biologist has also been actively involved in public education related to the Post Point herons. GENERAL MONITORING Early season monitoring commenced in February 2010 to determine the onset of staging. A total of 13 site visits were made between February and April 2010. Between May 1 and June 30, a total of 12 site visits were completed. During these visits detailed observations were made and documented by the Biologist. The seasonal monitoring has been conducted by Jaime Welfelt with occasional visits by Ann Eissinger. The results of observations are summarized below and are cumulative through the season.

Early Season Assessment Following a relatively mild winter, no storm damage was observed in the Post Point heron colony and most nests and nest trees appeared to be intact from 2009. As of February, 2010, 11 nest structures remained in the colony, no heron were observed in the colony. However, adult heron were observed staging at the Post Point Water Treatment Plant. A total of 8 heron were observed staging on a clarifier on the west side of the facility. Heron began moving into the colony in early March. By March 6, 2010, 5 nests were occupied.

Breeding Chronology Field visits to the Post Point heronry started in mid-February. A total of 8 staging heron were observed on February 5, 2010. Colony occupation was first documented March 6th with 11 nests visible and 5 nests occupied, this is similar to 2009. By March 13 the colony had increased to at least 7 occupied nests, 5 by mated heron pairs. A total of 13 nests were visible, so 6 nests were not occupied. Paring and breeding activities were well underway. By March 19, a total of 14 nests were visible, 10 nests were occupied and two nests were incubating which is on par with 2009. Egg laying and Incubation of eggs will continue. Early April brought typical spring storms, high winds, heavy rain and occasional hail. The colony remained stable with 10 nests occupied and all incubating eggs. No additional nest were visibly occupied, however, visibility had decreased due to full leaf-out. Incubation continued through April with the first hatchlings detected on the 27th at which time 6 nests were confirmed with hatched young. The actual hatching date is likely earlier since some of the young were visible in the nests. This hatching is earlier than 2009, but similar to years previous. Note, breeding chronology varies by about 3 weeks +/-. Mild temperatures (50-60°F) and spring weather continued through May. Incubation and early hatching in April gave way to rearing in May and a few early fledgings. By May 1st


3

at least 7 of the 11 active nests had young, and young could be heard throughout the colony. The heron colony continued to be very active through May as young grew and become more active. Nests contained 2-5 young, most with 3 young. In the last week of May one nest contained a dead young along with its siblings. During a field visit, one of the live young was observed taking the head of the dead sibling and dropping it out of the nest. At the end of May, a photo sent to the Biologist of foraging heron near Marine Park included a heron that appeared to be a juvenal. Some young in the nests were also actively flapping to exercise their wings – a common behavior prior to fledging. This indicated possible early fledging. In June the colony continued to be active and productive. No visible active nests appeared to have failed and the young were growing and actively preparing to fledge. By the end of June some young had left the colony while other young were fledging. Predation and Disturbance During each field visit to and in the vicinity of the heronry, observations are made of potential predators, such as bald eagles, red tailed hawks, crows and ravens. No predator incursions have been observed in the heron colony this season to date. A special effort was made at the end of May to observe the colony during the Ski to Sea festivities. Three site visits were made prior to, during and after the event festivities. With the finish line located at Marine Park, the potential for disturbance the foraging herons and the colony were possible. The results of the observations were negative for disturbance and proved that the event had little or no disturbance to the herons. Herons were seen feeding in eelgrass beds within about 200 feet of the finish line and were not utilizing all of the foraging area. A limitation around feeding areas at this critical period is however is notable. Bald Eagles are generally common and regularly observed in the vicinity of the colony. The male adult belonging to the pair of resident Bald Eagles was consistently perched in the vicinity of the colony, the female was only occasionally observed. One occurrence on No eagle incursions into the heron colony were observed or reported. No other predation or disturbance was noted. A persistent pedestrian trail, constructed in 2009, was cleared and actively used again this year, earlier in the season, despite signage and fencing the trail was. The trail was reported to the City of Bellingham and the trail entry points were blocked, parts of the trail obliterated and “no trespassing” signs were posted. A public education effort is needed to inform citizens and neighbors of the sensitivity of the heron colony and to safeguard the colony during the nesting season. Now, it seems acceptable by some neighbors to use the trail, despite the efforts to discourage its use.

PRODUCTIVITY The productivity of the visible nests within the heron colony is monitored annually and is measured during visits in May and June prior to fledging. Productivity within the colony is an important indicator of the health of the colony and is particularly important this year given that the colony has failed to produce young over the past 2 years.


4

The Post Point herons have successfully produced young this year and in one case, the maximum number of young were produced for one nest. Based on observations in 2010, between 2 and 5 young were documented for the 11 active nests. Visibility obscured certain nests resulting in and average of 3 young per nest (8 nests). This an excellent result and reflects good health and success on the part of the adults and a viable food source. PUBLIC EDUCATION Public education is an integral part of the heron conservation at Post Point. Interpretive signs continue to attract attention and educate the public. The monitoring biologist is frequently engaged in conversation and information sharing with the public using the trail and off leash area. The signs are very informational and provide basic heron life history facts. In addition to educational signs, some neighbors of the heron colony are providing some informal observations and photographs via the internet. Public participation in heron stewardship is encouraged. POST POINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION The City of Bellingham is planning an expansion of the Post Point Water Treatment Plant, located to the northeast of the heron colony. The facility expansion, as planned, will require construction of a new clarifier within the colony’s 100 foot buffer. The City has requested the Biologist review the project for impacts to the herons or colony. A meeting held June 1, 2010 with COB Public Works and later a public information meeting provided an overview of the project. Further consideration and discussion with Washington Department of Wildlife will be made. CONCLUSION The Post Point Heron Colony has reoccupied this 2010 season and continued to nest for a full season, following mid-season abandonment in 2009 and 2008. This successful nesting season is critical to the colony’s future. The colony is active and nesting continued through June with fledging of young starting by the end of the month. During the nesting season a total of 11 nests were active and occupied. The colony appeared stable and undisturbed. The herons returned in February and were observed staging at the Post Point Water Treatment Plant. The breeding season commenced in early March as heron returned to the colony and nests were occupied at about the same time as in 2009. Occupation, pairing, courtship and nest enhancement appeared to be normal, yet about five nests remained unoccupied. Egg laying and incubation began in the third week of March and incubation continued with young hatching in 6 nests by the end of April. Spring conditions were mild and no major disturbances were observed. Bald Eagles were present, but the usual adult pair posed no threat to the herons and no eagle incursions were reported. In previous years May and early June was the period of destabilization of the colony and over the past two years resulted in colony abandonment. This year a close watch on the colony included observations over the Ski to Sea festival weekend and no observable disturbances were noted. The colony continued to function through June and began fledging young before the end of the month.


5

An illegal pedestrian trail constructed through the colony from 2009, was used again early in the season and reported to COB. The City responded with renewed fences and signage. A review of the expansion of the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant and possible impacts on the heron colony has been requested by the City of Bellingham and is currently underway. Close observation of the foraging area and possible recreational disturbance was made due to increased human use of Marine Park and associated shoreline which remain a source of human disturbance for foraging heron. Increased monitoring of foraging herons was made. As of June 30, 2010, the Post Point heron colony has successfully recolonized, produced young and begun fledging. A total of 11 nests were active and all appear to have been productive. Monitoring of the colony and immediate area will continue until all of the young have fledged from the colony. A final report will be provided following the conclusion of the nesting season. Finally, Nahkeeta Northwest would like to extend our gratitude to the City of Bellingham Public Works Department, Larry Bateman and the staff at Post Point for their assistance in this monitoring effort. Thank you. Respectfully submitted,

Ann Eissinger, Principal/Wildlife Biologist Nahkeeta Northwest POB 176 Bow WA 98232 ph: 360-770-6012 email: [email protected]

Filename: Post Point Progress May-June 20010.doc Directory: C:\Documents and Settings\Ann Eissinger\My

Documents\Nahkeeta NW Jobs\2010 Job Files\Post Point 2010 Template: C:\Documents and Settings\Ann Eissinger\Application

Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: Post Point Heron Monitoring Subject: Author: Ann Eissinger Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 7/14/2010 12:36 PM Change Number: 8 Last Saved On: 7/16/2010 11:42 AM Last Saved By: Total Editing Time: 1,441 Minutes Last Printed On: 7/19/2010 11:40 AM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 5 Number of Words: 2,022 (approx.) Number of Characters: 11,529 (approx.)


ESA Appendix E June 2011

APPENDIX E: GRADING AND PLANTING PLANS

Tacoma

Seattle

Olympia

Bellingham WHATCOM

Project Location

§̈¦5

BELLINGHAMBAY

CH UC K AN UTBAY

BELLINGHAM

§̈¦5

Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant

Legend

Project Location

Streams

Major Roads

City Limits

0 0.5 1

MilesoPURPOSE:

DATUM: NAVD 88

PROPOSED: Post Point WWTP Improvements

IN: Section 2 and 11; T37N-R2E

COUNTY: Whatcom STATE: WA

SHEET: 1 of 9DATE: May 2011

FILE

NA

ME

: She

et01

_Vic

inity

.ai /

RE

F #2

1040

3C

RE

ATE

D B

Y: J

AB

/ D

ATE

LA

ST

UP

DAT

ED

: 05/

20/1

1

VICINITY MAP

NAME:

REFERENCE #:

SITE LOCATION ADDRESS:200 Mackenzie Avenue,Bellingham, WA

N ' ,. f llfl Feet

LEGEND ™ Filled Wetland- 6,203 sf

PURPOSE: Mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities.

DATUM:NAVD 88

I ~ ~! 11 ... Flgure2

NAME: Wetland Impacts - Plan ViewWetlands A and B

REFERENCE #: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: 200 McKenzie Avenue, Bellingham, WA


IN: Section; Township; Range. Section 2 and 11 T37N- R2E COUNTY: Whatcom STATE: WA

SHEET: 2 of9 DATE: June 2011

""':"""'1"~ ' .

J. \ " -1 r1 \ .. \ \ . a ..

Q .. ~/~//#/////.W

"ic

I I

w~

~

~//~//,@mW.@ I

® Yi> r :· ~ \~, ~

\ ', -.. l \\'\ ~~ \ ' .

\ \

~ ' ,' . \ ""'")) -, -~ 0 0 ---.,

. . ~ _, _,,__ -\ \ ~ ·.·. ~ "-..~ ' - "0 0 0 °_ ;;.... ... - --· .... ~·- ~.... -- - 0 0 .... 0 0 •

' - ' :.. '\ • - - o o o - o o o _. - --~ . .__"Aeltvatee _ __ " " 0

-r k ~ -~ \ ·: • - - a , -:;=: a-~-7 o- --- ----., ····~~------..._..__ -' • ' '-· --..... 0 0 0 '

' .... ..., - .,., 0 0 0 0 ~-----,,--,,. ~ \,. ~,,, \ :. -- 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 ~ " • .. • - · - -----;, 0 0 • 0

{_ y

:n: 'l-" (''~'

' ~ - --;;i ·

, ,<ti"'

<, ~

A -ic

® fyff

,~.,.__ ........ .....,I

~'~ ~\ '\ \...,._, ~~ r -.;;;;;_ -, 0

" "

0

.J ~ ' ,, \ ~ ·1 ·~~, ~-· ' Wetland G --' "'- \ '. "' - · ~~), ) Jfr~-: ~ .. ,, ... / . -

'e :r ~~......... . --' '"' ~-.... ~<""'-. . ,.._.,, ... -< ~~~~~c- '"'"" ' '""<- · .. ' • " ::::::--,...__. .... LEGEND tland-311 Sf ':::,;."-:1""" ~~::::.::>·-=::~-lllmil FllledWe '\'\ ~~~~

N .. ~ 1:-~ ·- .....

'l-"

,.a"lf"'

Figure3

PURPOSE: To mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities

SHEET TITLE PROPOSED: Post Point WWTP Improvements

DATUM:NAVD 88

NAME: Wetland Impacts - Plan View -WetlandG




B

y T,S 1,S 3(J Feet

Section B-B" Wetland A and B

PURPOSE: Mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities.

DATUM:NAVD 88

' 7

SHEET TITLE

NAME: Wetland Impacts - Section View


B'40'

35'

30' c 0

25',;

' 20' iii

15'

10'

S'

o·

Figure 4




LEGEND Wetland Creation / ~ 11,255sf / /

/,~~ Existing Fence to be/ ~Removed

Existing Gravel Path to be Removed

10- Existing Contour

l__,,.9___.. Proposed Contour

' f !fJ1l · Railfoad,,t/p, TracksW'r' .r

/Jl~1 - i //// ~

I~ #'k/I 10 r u=.-.. -----_--.-._.-.. -_- .. -----·-·. '~~L - . \ ,) 1 -- / .. ····.·.·.··· I ~~--/ . ··-···-····

\~J''~ ~~············ ~· /P \+\.~;~ ,~ I } l\ \_,~:::•·•·· / I ~~J • ,,,,,,.. ~~ -~ _,,,,,,..

--.~~~ .. ----_ ... -~~-~ ····.~· ' -:..;~=-=-I -:....-s:1e~.:-

N ¥' • ' 1f •

Feet

PURPOSE: Create wetland to mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities

DATUM:NAVD 88 MHHW= 8.03 FT.

Existing Lagoon

~\I

D 0

Existing Woody Debris to be Relocated w/in Mitigation Site

Existing Wood Fence to be Removed

SHEET TITLE

NAME: Wetland Creation Plan View REFERENCE #: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: 200 McKenzie Avenue, Bellingham, WA

Figure 5


IN: Section; Township; Range. Sections 2 and 11 T37N- R2E COUNTY: Whatcom STATE: WA


A' A ~

c: ....I 15 ,g ::;: 13 ,_ .. ~ g? ......... .!!! _g 11 ...... w m

'~ '\ I HHW-¢< 9 ~ "\, TQ,U~ , -

7 130 120 100 80 60 40 20 ....,

Distance from Baseline (ft.)

H. Scale: 1"= 20' V. Scale: 1"= 10'

Figure&

PURPOSE: Create wetland to mitigate impacts of SHEET TITLE PROPOSED: Post Point WWTP Improvements constructing new WWTP facilities NAME: Wetland Creation - Section View

IN: Section; Township; Range. DATUM:NAVD 88 REFERENCE #: Sections 2 and 11 T37N- R2E

MHHW= 8.03 FT. SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: Whatcom STATE: WA

200 McKenzie Avenue, Bellingham, WA SHEET: 6 of9 DATE: June 2011

N LEGEND

mt

Feet

Low Plantings Adjacent to Trail 3,045 sf

Plantings Minimum 6' From Trail 34,811 sf

PURPOSE: Enhance Wetland to mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities

DATUM:NAVD 88

\ l

) ( .

··~ {l~ _, ' SHEET TITLE

NAME: Planting Plan Wetland A Enhancement


i'.

Q.

Flgure7




LEGEND

lwQQQQI W/r& vvvv

vvVvV

Saltmarsh 11,255 sf

Beach Meadow 11,937 sf

Shrub Shoreline 8,551 sf

N

/ .I

.I

PURPOSE: Create wetland to mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities

DATUM:NAVD 88 MHHW= 8.03 FT.

Feet

_____ , Salt marsh

Beach meadow

Shrub shoreline

SHEET TITLE

NAME: Planting Plan - Wetland Creation Area.


Figures


IN: Section; Township; Range. Sections 2 and 11 T37N- R2E COUNTY: Whatcom STATE: WA


Wetland Creation Area Salt Marsh: Carex lynbyei (Lyngby's Sedge) Distichlis spicata (Saltgrass) Plantago maritime (Goose Tongue) Potentilla pacifica (Pacific Silverweed) Angelica lucida (Seawatch Angelica) Aster subspicatus (Douglas Aster) Deschampsia caespitosa (Tufted Hairgrass) Juncus gerardii (Mud Rush) Triglochin maritimum (Seaside Arrowgrass) Striplex patula Grindelia integrilolia (Gum weed)

Beach Meadow Elymus mollis (Dune Wild Rye) Lupinus littoralis (Seashore Lupine) Carex macrocephylla (Large-Headed Sedge) Ambrosia chamissonis (Silver Bur Weed) Lathyrus japonica (Beach Pea) Plantago maritime (Seaside Plantain) Aster subspicatus (Douglas Aster) Delphinium menziesii (Menzies Larkspur) Allium acuminatum (Hookers Onion) Camassia leichtlinii (Greater Camas)

Shrub Shoreline Wetland A Enhancement Includes underseeding with the Low planrings within 5' of trail: Beach Meadow mix Carex pachystachaya ( Chamisso Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Sedge) (!Gnnikinnick) Carex mertensii (Mertens Sedge) Gaultheria shallon (Salal) Carex lenticularis (Lakeshore Amelanchier alnifolia Sedge) (Saskatoon) Carex echinata (Star Sedge) Corylus cornuta v. californica Juncus effussu (Soft Rush) (Beaked Hazelnut) Juncus tenuis (Slender Rush) Rosa nutkana (Nootka Rose) Sisyrinchium idahoense (Western Ribes lacustre (Swamp Blue Eyed Grass) Gooseberry) Stachys pilosa (Marsh Hedge Ribes sanguineum (Red Nettle) Flowering Currant) Camassia quamash (Common Symphoricarpos alb us (Common Camas) Snowberry) Athyrium filix-femina (Lady Fern) Oemleria cerasiformis (Indian Shrubs and Trees minimum 5' Plum) distance away £tom trail (includes Sambucus racemosa (Red low planrings): Elderberry) Cornus sericea (Red Twig Salix sitchensis (Sitka Willow) Dogwood) Salix scouleriana (Scouler's Lonicera involucrata (Black Willow) Twinberry) Prunus emarginata (Bitter Spirea douglasii (Hardback Cherry) Spirea) Malus fusca (Pacific Crabapple) Rosa nutkana (Nootka Rose) Rhamnus purshiana (Cascara) Ribes divarictum (Black Lonicera involucrate (Black Gooseberry) Twinberry) Ribes lacustre (Swamp Quercus garryana (Garry Oak) Gooseberry) Pinus contotta v. contotta (Shore Crataegus columbiana (Columbia Pine) Hawthorne) Calocedrus decurrens (Incense Rhamnus purshiana (Cascara) Cedar) Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon Ash)

SHEET TITLE

Acer glabrum v. Douglasii (Douglas Maple) Salix hookeriana (Hooker Willow Salix sitchensis (Sitka Willow)


PURPOSE: Mitigate impacts of constructing new WWTP facilities NAME:Shoreline Areas Plant List IN: Section 2 and 11 ;

Township 37N; Range 2E County: Whatcom STATE: WA

DATUM: NAVD 88 REFERENCE#: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: 200 McKenzie Avenue, Bellingham, WA SHEET: 9 of9

DATE: June 2011