Beaver Dam Management

SEPA Environmental Checklist

SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES

SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This SEPA environmental review of Seattle Public Utilities’ (SPU) Beaver Dam Management Project has been
conducted in accord with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C), State SEPA
regulations (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] Chapter 197-11), and the City of Seattle SEPA ordinance
(Seattle Municipal Code [SMC] Chapter 25.05).
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project:
Beaver Dam Management

2. Name of applicant:
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:

Steve Damm, Project Manager
Seattle Public Utilities
P.O. Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
206-713-8648; steve.damm@seattle.gov

4. Date checklist prepared:

May 10, 2021

5. Agency requesting checklist:

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)

6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):

The project would be constructed in 2021 and is expected to take up to three working days
per each of the two project sites. The constructed project would be maintained for the life
span of the subject beaver dams, which could be many years. SPU and the Seattle
Department of Parks and Recreation (SPR) would periodically remove debris from the
constructed project at the Thornton Creek dams and the Longfellow Creek dams, respectively.
SPU would repair the constructed project at all sites for as long as required.

7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with
this proposal? If yes, explain.
SPU periodically installs other beaver deterrence structures elsewhere within the municipal
limits of the City of Seattle and in the City’s South Fork Tolt and Cedar River municipal
watersheds. Those projects have not been identified at this time and would not be related to
this proposal.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 1 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
No environmental information has been prepared or will be prepared.

9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting
the property covered by this proposal.

10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Hydraulic Project Approvals(Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW])

11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain
aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
Beavers have recently constructed two dams immediately upstream of the pedestrian
footbridge over Longfellow Creek near 2512 SW Graham Street, in the High Point
neighborhood of West Seattle in the City of Seattle, King County, Washington (Attachment A).
The dams pose an imminent threat to integrity of the pedestrian footbridge footings by
altering the path and velocity of stream flows (Attachment B). The dams may also lead to
localized flooding of nearby residential properties during the rainy season.

In addition, beavers have routinely constructed two dams in SPU’s Meadowbrook Pond
Stormwater Detention and Flood Control Facility in the Meadowbrook neighborhood of the
City of Seattle (Attachment C). This constructed stormwater management facility in northeast
Seattle is located immediately downstream of the confluence of the north and south
branches of Thornton Creek. It contains the 2.0 to 2.7 acre (depending on water level)
Meadowbrook Pond that captures and detains some of the stormwater runoff from about
6,840 acres of the upstream watershed. In recent years, resident beavers have constructed
dams at the Pond outlets n ear 39th Ave NE and NE 105th St (Attachment C), which diminish
flows to the lower two miles of Thornton Creek during summer low flow periods and
endanger resident fish and impede migration of anadromous fish.

This proposal would deploy beaver dam management interventions at both dams at both
sites. Specifically, the proposed work would install four pond levelers by notching the dams
and then installing exclusion fences (Attachment D). The notched opening would be
approximately 3 feet wide and 1.5 feet deep. Once the notch is created, workers would
install exclusion fencing such that it forms a box around the notch. The fencing would extend
16 feet upstream from the top of the dam. Notching assists in preventing beavers from
detecting stream flow through the dam and the fencing prevents them from effectively
plugging the notch. The welded-wire fencing has a mesh size of 4 inches by 6 inches and is
typically anchored with metal t-posts.

These interventions are intended to control water levels and flows in Longfellow and
Thornton creeks and are preferred alternatives to relocating the beavers or removing or
breaching an established beaver dam that maintains hydrology of a nearby wetland or pond.
SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021
Page 2 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

These pond levelers would be installed at the intended depth, extending upstream and
downstream of each dam. The pond levelers would maintain water levels in adjacent
wetlands and ponds such that risk of future localized flooding would be minimized. The
proposed design provides unimpeded fish passage while preventing beavers from
constructing effective dams at the pedestrian bridge at the Longfellow Creek site and in
Meadowbrook Pond at the Thornton Creek site.

12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location
of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if
known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).
Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps
or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The Longfellow Creek site is in the City of Seattle street right-of-way for SW Graham St near
2512 SW Graham St in the High Point neighborhood of West Seattle (T24N, R03E, S24). Work
may also occur on parcels 3438501370 and 3438501360 owned and managed by SPR. The
first dam is located at latitude 47.546462, longitude -122.364286. The second dam is located
150 feet downstream of the first dam (47.546878, -122.3644265).

The Thornton Creek site at Meadowbrook Pond is on SPU-owned parcel 2726049129 at 3600
NE 105th St in the Meadowbrook neighborhood of the City of Seattle (T26N, R04E, S27)
(47.705080, -122.287960).

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site:
Flat Rolling Hilly Steep Slopes Mountainous
Other:

b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?

Both project locations are generally flat. Steep slopes (less than 40%) are associated with
the banks of Longfellow and Thornton Creeks.

c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of
long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these
soils.
The general geologic condition of the Puget Sound region is a result of glacial and non-
glacial activity that occurred over the course of millions of years. Review of the geologic
map covering the project location (Troost et al. 2005, available at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1252/ ) indicates both project sites are underlain primarily
by Vashon till, and advance outwash deposits. Glacial till is a mix of poorly sorted silt,
sand, and sub-rounded to well-rounded gravels and cobbles that are transported by the
glacier and deposited under the ice resulting in a very dense to over consolidated
deposit. Advance outwash consists of well sorted sand and gravel that was transported
SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021
Page 3 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

by meltwater channels emanating from the toe of the advancing glacier and
subsequently overridden by the glacier. However, urban development at and near both
project sites over the last 100 years has resulted in a predominance of disturbed native
soils/sediments, cut slopes, and large placements of fill material.

d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe:
Portions of the Longfellow Creek site are mapped by the City of Seattle as Potential Slide
Environmentally Critical Areas
(https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f822b2c6498c4163b0cf90
8e2241e9c2). There are no visible indications of unstable soils on or near this project
site or at the Thornton Creek site.

e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of
any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate the source of fill.
The proposal would not require any filling, excavation, or grading.

f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe:
The proposed work would create no potential for erosion.

g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
The proposed work would neither create new impervious surfaces nor demolish existing
impervious surfaces.

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
No filling or excavation would take place in or near watercourses or wetlands. If needed,
best management practices (BMP) (as identified in the City of Seattle’s Stormwater Code
SMC 22.800 through 22.808, Director’s Rule: 2009-004 SPU/16-2009 DPD, and Volume 2
Construction Stormwater Control Technical Requirements Manual) would be used to
manage stormwater runoff, construction disturbance, and erosion as needed during
construction, but these measures are not expected to be needed.

2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal [e.g., dust, automobile, odors,
industrial wood smoke, greenhouse gases (GHG)] during construction, operation, and
maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities if known.
Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the project are summarized in the table below;
calculations are provided in Attachment E. The project would produce GHGs in three
ways: embodied in materials to be installed on the project; through construction activity
(especially as described above); and by regular maintenance and monitoring activities
throughout the life of the completed project, estimated (for purposes of this checklist) to
be 10 years. Emissions generated during the manufacture of materials used in this

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 4 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

Project are not estimated or otherwise considered in this environmental analysis due to
the difficulty and inaccuracy inherent in calculating such estimates.

Construction equipment would include hand-held tools and would not generate GHG
emissions. The project would generate GHG emissions during construction in the
transport of materials, equipment, and workers to and from the site. The estimates
provided are based on assumptions for typical numbers of vehicle operations to execute
the work (Attachment E). The completed project would generate GHG emissions
through the routine and emergency maintenance and monitoring of the interventions an
assumed life expectancy of 10 years. The completed project would not generate odors.

SUMMARY OF GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS

GHG Emissions GHS Emissions
Activity/Emission Type (pounds of CO 2 e)1 (metric tons of CO 2 e)1
Buildings 0 0
Paving 0 0
Construction Activities (Diesel) 0 0
Construction Activities (Gasoline) 145.8 .07
Long-term Maintenance (Diesel) 0 0
Long-term Maintenance (Gasoline) 972 .44
Total GHG Emissions 1,117.8 0.51
1 Note: 1 metric ton = 2,204.6 pounds of CO2e. 1,000 pounds = 0.45 metric tons of CO2e

b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
No off-site sources of emissions or odors would affect the proposed project.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:

During construction and operation, impacts to air quality would be reduced and
controlled through implementation of federal, state, and local emission control criteria
and City of Seattle required practices. These would include requiring workers to use
BMPs for construction methods, proper vehicle maintenance, and minimizing vehicle and
equipment idling.

3. Water
a. Surface:
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If so, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
The proposed work would be in and on the banks of Longfellow Creek, a perennial
fish-bearing watercourse tributary to Puget Sound, and Thornton Creek, a perennial
fish-bearing watercourse tributary to Lake Washington.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 5 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

(2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If so, please describe, and attach available plans.
The project would affect Longfellow and Thornton creeks.

(3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
No fill or dredge material would be placed in or removed from surface waters or
wetlands.

(4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? If so, give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions would be required.

(5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
The proposal is in and near a designated FEMA-designated floodway and 100-year
floodplain on Longfellow and Thornton creeks.

(6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
The proposal would not discharge waste materials to surface waters.

b. Ground:
(1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so,
give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities
withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No other ground water withdrawals or discharge are anticipated.

(2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals…; agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of
such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals
or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
This project would not discharge waste material from septic tanks or other sources
into groundwater.

c. Water Runoff (including storm water):

(1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow into other waters? If so, describe.
There would be no source of runoff during installation of the interventions or from
the constructed project.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 6 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

(2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No part of the proposed work involves any discharges of waste materials to surface
or ground waters.

(3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If
so, describe.
Once completed, the proposed work would not alter or otherwise affect surface
drainage patterns.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage impacts, if
any:
No surface or ground water and drainage impacts would occur.

4. Plants
a. Types of vegetation found on the site:

Deciduous trees: Alder Maple Aspen Other:

Evergreen trees: Fir Cedar Pine Other:
Shrubs
Grass
Pasture
Crop or grain
Orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops
Wet soil plants: Cattail Buttercup Bulrush Skunk cabbage
Other:
Water plants: water lily eelgrass milfoil Other:
Other types of vegetation:

b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?

The project would not remove or alter vegetation.

c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.

According to a review of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Natural Heritage Program’s document called “Sections that Contain Natural Heritage
Features, Current as of January 12, 2021” (www.dnr.wa.gov), there are no documented
occurrences of sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant species at or near either
project site. No federally-listed endangered or threatened plant species or State-listed
sensitive plant species are known to occur within Seattle‘s municipal limits.

d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance

vegetation on the site, if any:
Construction of the proposed work would not require plant removal or pruning.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 7 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
No noxious weeds or invasive plant species are known to be at the project site.

5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be
on or near the site:

Birds: Hawk Heron Eagle Songbirds

Other: crow, pigeon
Mammals: Deer Bear Elk Beaver
Other: possum, raccoon, squirrel, rat
Fish: Bass Salmon Trout Herring
Shellfish Other:

b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site:

Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) is known from reaches of Longfellow Creek
near that project site and is a State-listed priority species. No other such species are
known to be present at or near the Longfellow Creek site based on a check of the
WDFW’s “Priority Habitat and Species on the Web” database on May 6, 2020
(https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/). WDFW indicates this project site is
within an historic occurrence of western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a State-
listed endangered species. However, there are currently no known populations of
western pond turtle in the City of Seattle.

The Thornton Creek site is known to provide habitat for Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and
coho (O. kisutch) salmon and resident coastal cutthroat trout and is upstream of
potential habitat for steelhead trout (O. mykiss) and sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Chinook
salmon and steelhead trout are listed as Threatened species under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Coho salmon is a candidate species for listing under ESA.
WDFW’s “Priority Habitat and Species on the Web” databse indicates the Thornton Creek
site is near a listed occurrence of little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), a listed sensitive
species in Washington.

Both project sites are known to be (but not mapped as being) within the habitat of bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias)—priority species
in Washington.

c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.

Seattle is located within the migratory route of many birds and other animal species and
is part of the Pacific Flyway, a major north-south route of travel for migratory birds in the
Americas extending from Alaska to Patagonia. Also, Puget Sound and Lake Washington
are important water migration routes for many animal species.

d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:

The proposed work would not remove any vegetation.
SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021
Page 8 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.

King County lists the European starling, house sparrow, Eastern gray squirrel, and fox
squirrel as terrestrial invasive species for these areas in the City of Seattle
(http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/animals-and-
plants/biodiversity/threats/Invasives.aspx).

6. Energy and Natural Resources

a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,
etc.
The constructed project would not require energy.

b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
The proposed project does not involve building structures or planting vegetation that
would block access to the sun for adjacent properties.

c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
There are no conservation features or proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts because there would be no such impacts.

7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe:
The completed project would not create environmental health hazards.

(1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
Neither project site is known to have contamination or potential contamination from
present or past uses.

(2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development
and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located
within the project area and in the vicinity.
There are no known hazardous chemicals or conditions that might affect project
development and design.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 9 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

(3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during
the project’s development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the
project.
There are no toxic or hazardous chemicals would be stored, used, or produced at any
time during the operating life of the constructed project.

(4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.

No special emergency services would be required during construction or operation of
the project.

(5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:

There would be no environmental health hazards during the instillation process.

b. Noise

(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Noise that exists in the area would not affect the project.

(2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise levels in the vicinity of project construction would temporarily increase during
installation due to hammering with hand-held tools. Short-term noise from
construction equipment would be limited to the allowable maximum levels of
applicable laws, including the City of Seattle's Noise Control Ordinance [SMC Chapter
25.08.425—Construction and Equipment Operations]. Within the allowable
maximum levels, SMC 25.08 permits noise from construction equipment between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. weekdays, and 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. weekends and legal
holidays. The completed project would generate no additional noise from
equipment used for operation or maintenance.

(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:

Motorized construction equipment would not be used. SMC Chapter 25.08 (which
prescribes limits to noise and construction activities) would be enforced while the
project is being constructed and during operations, except for emergencies.

8. Land and Shoreline Use

a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current
land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
The proposed work at the Longfellow Creek site would be in unimproved public right-of-
way and SPR-owned open space parcels. The proposed work at the Thornton Creek site
would be on an SPU-owned parcel dedicated to stormwater management and

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 10 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

community open space. Adjacent property uses at both sites are single-family and low-
rise residential (some of which may contain home-based occupations).

b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe.
How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to
other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how
many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non-forest use?
Neither project site has been recently used for agricultural purposes.

(1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal
business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides,
tilling, and harvesting? If so, how?
The proposed work would neither be affected by nor affect surrounding working
farm or forest land normal business operations because there are no such operations
at or near either project site.

c. Describe any structures on the site.

The proposal is associated with an existing pedestrian bridge over Longfellow Creek.

d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?

The project would not demolish any structures.

e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?

Single Family 5,000 and Low-Rise Residential (LR1)

f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?

Longfellow Creek site: Single Family, Multi-family Residential, and City-owned Open
Space. Thornton Creek site: Single Family Residential

g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Neither project site is in a Shoreline Management district.

h. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally critical” area? If so, specify.
Both project sites are in Riparian Management, Wetland, Wetland Buffer, Liquefaction-
prone, and Flood-prone Environmentally Critical Areas associated with Longfellow and
Thornton creeks, as identified and mapped by the City of Seattle
(https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f822b2c6498c4163b0cf90
8e2241e9c2).

i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
No people would reside or work in the completed project.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 11 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?

The project would not displace any people.

k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:

There would be no displacement impacts.

l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses
and plans, if any:
The project would be compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans.

m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any:
There are no nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance.

9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or
low-income housing.
The proposed project would not construct any housing units.

b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or
low-income housing.
The proposed project would not eliminate any housing units.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:

No measures are proposed because there would be no housing impacts.

10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
All constructed structures would be less than four feet tall.

b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

No views would be altered or obstructed.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:

No such measures are proposed because there would be no aesthetic impacts.

11. Light and Glare

a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
The constructed project would not produce light or glare. Project instillation would
occur during workday working hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021
Page 12 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
The project would not create light or glare.

c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
There are no existing off-site sources of light and glare that would affect the proposal.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:

No measures are needed to reduce or control light and glare impacts because no impacts
would occur.

12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
No parks or other designated recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity of
the Longfellow Creek site. However, the proposed work at that site is near a pedestrian
trail and bridge used for informal recreational activities such as dog-walking, walking,
jogging, and bicycling.

At the Thornton Creek site, the Meadowbrook Pond facility is used by the Meadowbrook
community for passive recreational uses such as walking, jogging, non-motorized biking,
photography, and wildlife-watching. The Meadowbrook Community Center and Nathan
Hale High School and its athletic fields are more than 400 feet west of the Facility, on the
west side of 35th Ave NE.

b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
The proposed work would not displace any existing recreational uses.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation

opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The project would not affect any vehicle or pedestrian routes or access.

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years
old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so,
specifically describe.
There are numerous residential and other structures over 45 years old located near each
project site, most of which have not been evaluated for cultural/historic significance.
However, no buildings or structures would be disturbed by the project. Otherwise, no
known cultural/historic resources are located on or near the project sites.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 13 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation?
This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or
areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted
at the site to identify such resources.
According to the information sources listed in section B.13.c of this checklist, there are
no additional archaeological or cultural resources beyond those listed in section B.13.a
that have been documented to exist on or near the project sites.

c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on
or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
To determine if any project sites are located on or near properties listed, or documented
to be eligible for listing, on federal, state, or local cultural/historical registers, the project
sites were checked against the following registers on May 6, 2021:
• Washington Information System for Architectural & Archaeological Research
Data (WISAARD) maintained by the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (https://wisaard.dahp.wa.gov/)

• King County and City Landmarks List maintained by the King County Historic
Preservation Program, ( https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/services/home-
property/historic-
preservation/documents/resources/T06_KCLandmarkList.ashx?la=en)

• Landmark List, and Map of Designated Landmarks, maintained by the City of

Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods, accessed May 6, 2021
(http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/programs-and-services/historic-
preservation/landmarks/landmarks-map

d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to
resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
The proposed work would not affect buildings or known cultural resources and would
not create ground disturbance. The proposed work’s avoidance of ground disturbance
reduces the chance of encountering contextually significant archaeological materials.
Should evidence of cultural artifacts or human remains, either historic or prehistoric, be
encountered during excavation, work in that immediate area would be suspended and
the find would be examined and documented by a professional archaeologist. Decisions
regarding appropriate mitigation and further action would be made at that time.

14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The Longfellow Creek site is in City-owned street right-of-way near 2512 SW Graham St.
The Thornton Creek site is near 39th Ave NE and NE 105th St.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 14 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally
describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
The proposed project would not affect public transportation. At the Longfellow Creek
site, the nearest bus stop is located on Delridge Way SW more than 300 feet east of the
project location. Metro bus routes 120, 14, and the D-line operate on Delridge Way SW.

At the Thornton Creek site, the Meadowbrook Pond facility is close to public
transportation. Metro Transit routes 64 and 65 travel on 35th Ave NE. The nearest
transit stop is located on 35th Ave NE at NE 105th St, approximately 500 feet west of the
facility’s south entrance.

c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal
have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
At both sites, parking is currently on-street, free parking managed by the City of Seattle.
The proposal would neither create new, nor eliminate existing parking spaces. There are
ample on-street parking spots available near the project site and most nearby residences
have their own off-street parking.

d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian,
bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
The project would not add any new roads, streets, or driveways.

e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
The proposed project would not use or occur near water, rail, or air transportation.

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be
trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models
were used to make these estimates?
Project construction would generate a total of six round-trips due to workers and
materials being transported to and from the site during the estimated six working-day
construction period. The constructed project would be inspected twice per year for its
10-year lifespan by SPR and SPU maintenance staff. During those inspections,
accumulated trash would be removed and disposed appropriately. Thus, maintenance
and inspection of the completed project would generate an estimated 40 round trips.

g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and
forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
The proposal would not interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of
agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 15 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:

There would be no transportation impacts. Access for emergency-response vehicles
would be maintained at all times. No alternative routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
those with disabilities would be required.

15. Public Services

a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The project would not create an increased need for public services.

b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.

The proposed work would not have any impact on public services.

16. Utilities
a. Check utilities available at the site, if any:
None
Electricity Natural gas Water Refuse service
Telephone Sanitary sewer Septic system
Other: stormwater drainage; fiber optic; cable

b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Construction is not expected to interrupt, relocate, or reconstruct other utilities such as sewer,
water services, or natural gas. No other construction-related interruptions to utility services are
expected.

C. SIGNATURE

The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Digitally signed by Steve
Damm
Steve Damm Date: 2021.05.12

Signature: _ _______________________________
13:06:06 -07'00'

Steve Damm, Project Manager

ATTACHMENTS
A: Location and Site Maps for Longfellow Creek Site
B: Location and Site Maps for Thornton Creek Site
C: Photograph of Longfellow Creek Site
D: Photograph of a Pond Leveler
E: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 16 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

Attachment A: Location and Site Maps for Longfellow Creek Site

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 17 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

Attachment B: Photograph of Longfellow Creek Site

Photograph of the pedestrian bridge and first beaver dam, looking east.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 18 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

Attachment C: Location and Site Maps for Thornton Creek Site

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 19 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist

Attachment D: Photograph of a Pond Leveler

Photograph of a pond leveler installation at an unknown location in Western Washington.

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 20 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist
Attachment E: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet

Section I: Buildings

Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square

Feet (MTCO2e)
Square Feet (in Lifespan
Type (Residential) or Principal Activity thousands of Emissions
(Commercial) # Units square feet) Embodied Energy Transportation (MTCO2e)
Single-Family Home 0 98 672 792 0
Multi-Family Unit in Large Building 0 33 357 766 0
Multi-Family Unit in Small Building 0 54 681 766 0
Mobile Home 0 41 475 709 0
Education 0.0 39 646 361 0
Food Sales 0.0 39 1,541 282 0
Food Service 0.0 39 1,994 561 0
Health Care Inpatient 0.0 39 1,938 582 0
Health Care Outpatient 0.0 39 737 571 0
Lodging 0.0 39 777 117 0
Retail (Other than Mall) 0.0 39 577 247 0
Office 0.0 39 723 588 0
Public Assembly 0.0 39 733 150 0
Public Order and Safety 0.0 39 899 374 0
Religious Worship 0.0 39 339 129 0
Service 0.0 39 599 266 0
Warehouse and Storage 0.0 39 352 181 0
Other 0.0 39 1,278 257 0
Vacant 0.0 39 162 47 0
TOTAL Section I Buildings 0

Section II: Pavement

Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Pavement (sidewalk, asphalt patch)
Concrete Pad (50 MTCO2e/1,000 sq. ft. of 0 sq ft, 6 inches
pavement at a depth of 6 inches) thick (0 CY) 0
TOTAL Section II Pavement

Section III: Construction

Emissions
(See detailed calculations below) (MTCO2e)
TOTAL Section III Construction .07

Section IV: Operations and Maintenance

Emissions
(See detailed calculations below) (MTCO2e)
TOTAL Section IV Operations and Maintenance .44

TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS FOR PROJECT (MTCO 2 e) .51

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 21 of 22
 Beaver Dam Management
SEPA Environmental Checklist
Attachment E: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet, continued

Section III Construction Details

Construction: Diesel
Equipment Diesel (gallons) Assumptions

Subtotal Diesel Gallons 0

GHG Emissions in lbs CO2e 0 26.55 lbs CO2e per gallon of diesel
GHG Emissions in metric tons CO2e 0 1,000 lbs = 0.45359237 metric tons

Construction: Gasoline
Equipment Gasoline (gallons) Assumptions
Pick-up Trucks or Crew Vans 6 6 workdays x 1 truck x 1 round-trip/day x 20 miles/round-trip ÷ 20 mpg
Subtotal Gasoline Gallons 6
GHG Emissions in lbs CO2e 145.8 24.3 lbs CO2e per gallon of gasoline
GHG Emissions in metric tons CO2e .07 1,000 lbs = 0.45359237 metric tons

Construction Summary
Activity CO2e in pounds CO2e in metric tons
Diesel 0 0
Gasoline 145.8 .07
Total for Construction 145.8 .07

Section IV Long-Term Operations and Maintenance Details

Operations and Maintenance: Diesel
Equipment Diesel (gallons) Assumptions

Subtotal Diesel Gallons 0

GHG Emissions in lbs CO2e 0 26.55 lbs CO2e per gallon of diesel
GHG Emissions in metric tons CO2e 0 1,000 lbs = 0.45359237 metric tons

Operations and Maintenance: Gasoline

Equipment Gasoline (gallons) Assumptions
2 times per year for 2 sites for 10 years x 1 truck x 1 round-trip/event x 20
40 miles/round-trip ÷ 20 mpg
Subtotal Gasoline Gallons 40
GHG Emissions in lbs CO2e 972 24.3 lbs CO2e per gallon of gasoline
GHG Emissions in metric tons CO2e .44 1,000 lbs = 0.45359237 metric tons

Operations and Maintenance Summary

Activity CO2e in pounds CO2e in metric tons
Diesel 0 0
Gasoline 972 .44
Total Operations and Maintenance 972 .44

SEPA Checklist Beaver Dam Mgmt 051221 May 12, 2021

Page 22 of 22