City of Snohomish Endangered Species Act Response Planning Prepared for: City of Snohomish 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, Washington 98290 Prepared by: Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, Washington 98290 www.stewardandassociates.com May 2004 City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTACTS Client: City of Snohomish 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, WA 98290 Contact: Larry Bauman Telephone: (360) 568-3115 Email: [email protected] Preparer: Steward and Associates 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, WA 98390 Contact: John Lombard Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Email: [email protected] i City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS CONTACTS I CONTENTS II FIGURES V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Why an “Endangered Species Act” Strategy? 2 1.1.1 Providing Compliance with Multiple Environmental Laws 4 1.1.2 Meeting the City’s Vision 5 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 7 2.1 SNOHOMISH RIVER 7 2.1.1 Fish and Wildlife 9 2.1.2 Wetlands 9 2.1.3 Water Quality 11 2.1.4 Habitat Quality 11 2.2 PILCHUCK RIVER 12 2.2.1 Fish and Wildlife 14 2.2.2 Wetlands 14 2.2.3 Water Quality 14 2.2.4 Habitat Quality 15 2.3 CEMETERY CREEK 18 2.3.1 Fish and wildlife 18 2.3.2 Wetlands 22 2.3.3 Water Quality 22 2.3.4 Habitat Quality 26 2.3.5 Confluence Wetland 26 2.3.6 Harkins Fork 26 2.3.7 Myricks Fork 27 2.4 BUNK FOSS CREEK 27 2.4.1 Fish and wildlife 30 2.4.2 Wetlands 32 2.4.3 Water Quality 34 2.4.4 Habitat Quality 34 2.4.5 Fields Fork 35 2.4.6 Clarks Fork 35 2.5 BLACKMAN’S LAKE/SWIFTY CREEK 35 2.5.1 Fish and Wildlife 38 2.5.2 Wetlands 38 2.5.3 Water Quality 40 2.5.4 Habitat Quality 40 3 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY STUDY AREA 43 3.1 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS STUDY AREAS 43 3.2 SNOHOMISH RIVER 45 3.2.1 Programmatic Recommendations 45 3.2.2 Protection Priorities 45 3.2.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration 46 3.2.4 Vision for Future Conditions 49 3.3 PILCHUCK RIVER 49 3.3.1 Programmatic Recommendations 49 ii City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.2 Protection Priorities 50 3.3.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration 50 3.3.4 Vision for Future Conditions 53 3.4 CEMETERY CREEK 53 3.4.1 Programmatic 53 3.4.2 Protection Priorities 53 3.4.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration (see Figure III-4) 56 3.4.4 Fish Passage Restoration (see Figure III-4) 58 3.4.5 Vision for Future Conditions 61 3.5 BUNK FOSS CREEK 61 3.5.1 Programmatic 61 3.5.2 Protection Priorities (see Figure III-5) 61 3.5.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration (see Figure III-5) 62 3.5.4 Fish Passage Restoration 63 3.5.5 Vision for Future Conditions 66 3.6 SWIFTY CREEK/BLACKMAN’S LAKE 66 3.6.1 Programmatic 66 3.6.2 Protection Priorities (see Figure III-6) 66 3.6.3 Habitat and Water Quality Restoration (see Figure III-6) 67 3.6.4 Fish Passage Restoration (Not Recommended, Due to Costs) 67 3.6.5 Vision for Future Conditions 70 4 REVIEW OF CITY ACTIVITIES 71 4.1 CITY ACTIVITIES MOST AFFECTING CHINOOK SALMON 71 4.2 PRIORITY ACTIVITIES BASED ON CRITERIA OTHER THAN BENEFITS TO CHINOOK 72 4.3 DETAILED REVIEW OF CITY ACTIVITIES 73 4.3.1. Development Regulations: Buffers, Stormwater Standards, Other Issues 73 4.3.2 Habitat Acquisition and Restoration 81 4.3.3 Maintenance of Riverfront and Park Property 83 4.3.4 Stormwater Management 85 4.3.5 Pilchuck Dam Operations and Capital Improvements 90 4.3.6 Technical Assistance for Community-Based Stewardship 93 4.3.7 Road and Other Public Works Maintenance 94 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN 96 5.1 OVERALL PRIORITIES 96 5.1.1 Highest Priorities for Protection 96 5.1.2 Highest Priorities for Restoration 97 5.2 STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS FUNDING CONSTRAINTS 98 5.3 MONITORING TO EVALUATE THE ESA STRATEGY 99 5.4 COORDINATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 100 6 EXPECTED RESULTS FROM ESA STRATEGY 103 6.1 BENEFITS TO SALMON 103 6.2 BENEFITS TO WILDLIFE 103 6.3 BENEFITS TO HUMANS 104 6.4 BENEFITS TO CITY GOVERNMENT 104 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 105 APPENDIX B CONTRACT SCOPE OF WORK 110 APPENDIX C SMC 14.51.070 128 APPENDIX D WAC 222-16-030 130 APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY SAMPLING REPORT 134 iii City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX F REPORT TO PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE 161 APPENDIX G HIATS, WITH EXPLANATION OF HABITAT QUALITY INDEX 171 APPENDIX H WRIA 7 SUB-BASIN STRATEGIES FOR LOWER SNOHOMISH 195 APPENDIX I TRI-COUNTY STORMWATER MAINTENANCE 203 iv City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ FIGURES FIGURE II-1 SNOHOMISH RIVER STUDY AREA: DESIGNATED LAND USE 8 FIGURE II-2 SNOHOMISH RIVER STUDY AREA: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 10 FIGURE II-3 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA: DESIGNATED LAND USES 13 FIGURE II-4 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA (BUNK FOSS CONFLUENCE TO 6TH ST. BRIDGE): KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 16 FIGURE II-5 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA (6TH ST. BRIDGE TO MOUTH): KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 17 FIGURE II-6 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: DESIGNATED LAND USES 20 FIGURE II-7 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 21 FIGURE II-8 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY 24 FIGURE II-9 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: BPA WETLAND CHEMICAL AND NUTRIENT BARRIERS 25 FIGURE II-10 BUNK FOSS CREEK: DESIGNATED LAND USE 29 FIGURE II-11 BUNK FOSS CREEK BASIN: HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY 31 FIGURE II-12 BUNK FOSS CREEK BASIN: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 33 FIGURE II-13 SWIFTY CREEK SUBBASIN: DESIGNATED LAND USES 37 FIGURE II-14 SWIFTY CREEK SUBBASIN: KEY NATURAL RESOURCES 39 FIGURE III-1 SNOHOMISH ESA STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 44 FIGURE III-2 SNOHOMISH RIVER STUDY AREA: RECOMMENDATIONS 48 FIGURE III-3 PILCHUCK RIVER STUDY AREA: RECOMMENDATIONS 52 FIGURE III-4 CEMETERY CREEK BASIN: RECOMMENDATIONS 60 FIGURE III-5 BUNK FOSS CREEK BASIN: RECOMMENDATIONS 65 FIGURE III-6 SWIFTY CREEK SUBBASIN: RECOMMENDATIONS 69 E-I MONTHLY WATER QUALLITY MONITORING AND E.COLI SAMPLING LOCATIONS 156 F-I MACROINVERTEBRATE, NUTRIENT AND CONTAMINANT LOADING MONITORING SITES 166 v City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act Strategy for the City of Snohomish identifies and prioritizes actions that the City can take to preserve and enhance its streams, wetlands and riverfront, while promoting rational development and other City goals. The Strategy’s recommendations, based primarily on the needs of salmon, provide an integrated approach to City activities to assure compliance not only with the Endangered Species Act but also with other federal and state environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act. The recommendations are based on data best available science, including data collected specifically for this purpose, and have been developed in coordination with staff from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Thus, they can be used to guide the City’s future activities and protect fish and wildlife habitat within its Urban Growth Area. City of Snohomish officials, at their discretion, can use the Strategy to update critical area regulations and the city’s shoreline management plan, establish a stormwater management program for its NPDES Phase II municipal permit, and develop best management practices for maintenance of public works, parks and riverfront property. The Strategy also identifies and prioritizes habitat restoration projects, which could be implemented through grants and other partnerships, mitigation requirements for public and private projects, and a variety of City programs meant to further conservation goals. One of the original goals of the ESA Strategy in 2001-02 was to provide the City the potential basis for an exemption from “take” prohibitions for Puget Sound chinook salmon, which was listed as a threatened “Evolutionarily Significant Unit” under the ESA in March 1999 (64 FR 14308). Municipalities such as Snohomish face the risk of federal agency enforcement and citizen lawsuits when listed species are adversely affected by their actions or inactions. To reduce its liability, the City intended to seek approval for certain activities subsumed under one or more “limits” or exceptions to take prohibitions specified under Section 4(d) of the ESA. A 4(d) rule limit provides qualifying governments or individuals with a safe harbor from federal enforcement under the ESA, and greatly reduces the threat of litigation. As originally conceived, the Snohomish ESA Strategy was to be patterned after a similar effort then underway at the regional level. The “Tri-County” Salmon Conservation Coalition, which represented public and private interests across Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties, was seeking 4(d) rule exemptions for several county programs, including public water systems, road construction and maintenance, and stormwater management. By applying lessons learned in the Tri-County experience to the City of Snohomish’s specific needs, the ESA Strategy sought to provide protection for chinook salmon sufficient for NMFS approval, at a reduced cost to the City and its citizens. vi City of Snohomish ESA Response Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________________ The Tri-County coalition ultimately decided not to pursue 4(d) rule exemptions and, for now, it appears prudent for the City to do the same. The legal risks of liability for take appear relatively small due to the difficulty of proving that a program or suite of actions causes the take of individual fish.