2008/01/09 Council Agenda Packet

• SGF Grant Agreement No. G0800312 between the Washington State Department of Ecology and the City of Everett Project: Marshlands Sub-Area Plan 5.2: Presentations and Revisions 5.2.1: Present alternatives to Project Stakeholder Group at one meeting 5.2.2: Present revised alternatives to the public at one meeting. 5.2.3: Revise scoping document if needed to address comments on alternatives. Deliverables: • Meeting minutes (two meetings) — Due 15 days following each meeting • Three Preliminary Draft Alternative Plans— Due June 30, 2008 • Three Final Alternative Plans— Due August 29, 2008 Task 6: Draft Subarea Plan and SEPA Environmental Analysis Based on input from the Stakeholder Group and the public in Task 5, refine the alternatives, identify a preferred alternative, and prepare a draft Subarea Plan Report with integrated SEPA environmental analysis. Include a draft land use plan graphic and feasibility level cost estimate. Circulate for public review and comment per GMA, SMA, and SEPA requirements. Tasks 6.1 and 6.6 will address the preferred alternative. Tasks 6.2-6.5 will address all alternatives. 6.1: Discuss the following topics in the Draft Subarea Plan Report • A summary of the area's restoration potential and feasibility and a listing of the restoration goals and opportunities. • Feasibility of tidal habitat restoration considering property ownership; location and design of existing and planned infrastructure including roads, railroads, utilities, and towers; costs; and protection of adjacent properties. • Opportunities for nontidal habitat restoration and enhancement, such as providing habitat corridors for wildlife between Wood Creek and the Snohomish River and planting crops for wildlife. • Anticipated improvement in the ecological functions of the areas identified by the plan for restoration. • Timeframes and benchmarks for achieving the restoration goals and opportunities. • Measures or methods to promote habitat restoration and enhancement opportunities, including identification of committed and potential funding sources. • Identification of interested property owners who are willing to participate in habitat restoration or enhancement opportunities. • Opportunities and types of recreational uses that could be appropriate, or that would not be appropriate, in parts of the Project area. • Consistency with the Shoreline Management Act including Shorelines of Statewide Significance criteria, the comprehensive plan, and other applicable designations. • The appropriate shoreline environment designation for the area, based on the above analysis, including evaluating whether a new designation is needed and whether the entire area should have the same designation. Page 7of21