HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L01-005 - CITY OFTUKWILA - SPECIAL PERMISSIONLO1-005
180th GRADE SEPARATION
7310 / 7320 SW 43RD
148 St BNSF
S 149 St
e
P 0 0
3
r c+ ci
S 150 St
S 152 St
SR S
S 152 St
S 149 St
S 151 St
m
ro
is
Parkway
S 164 St
Strander Blvd
Treck
PROJECT
LOCATION
r
!>8 Private
I Si
Corporate
Drive N
Corporate
Drive S
Upland Drive
Private
4
Riverside
c3 Dr
Todd
NTS
43 St
City of Tukwila, S 180 Street Grade
Separation
Department of Public Works
2/8/00
Vicinity Map
I—
=a
Z
0> E- Z
JU
00
co 0
cow
J
k—
N LL
W0
2
J
u_Q
0
= a
W
Z=
1— 0
Z 1—
W
• W
UO
O -
O F-
W W
F -
LL' O
Z
W
• =
O~
Z
,.v
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
December 20, 2000
Gary Phillips, P.E.
Berger /Abam
33301 Ninth Ave. S.
Federal Way, WA 98003 -6395
SUBJECT: • APPROVAL TO CREATE ADDITIONAL WETLAND IN EXCHANGE
FOR OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK WETLAND BUFFER
ENCUMBRANCE
MITIGATION PLAN FOR IIiE S. 180 ST. GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Dear Mr. Phillips:
If you have any questions, please call Allen Quynn at 425- 430 -7247.
Sincerely,
on Straka, P.E.
Surface Water Utility Supervisor
cc: Robin Tischmak
Lys Hornsby
enclosure
H:\DIVISION.S\ UTILITIE .S \DOCS\2000- 620.doc\RJS\hs
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
YG: :•» i :;. FJ. , (4 Ia : P.ape lakeT.50 clad e x1 24 / ° 511
CIT . RENTON
Planning /Building /Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
RECEIVED
0 E C 2 8 2000
PU BL I C WOR
The City of Renton Surface Water Utility concurs with the conceptual plans to create additional
wetland in exchange for the Oakesdale Business Park wetland buffer encumbrance on the site.
The creation of 1.92 acres of wetland on City property north of 180 St. and east of the railroad
tracks is consistent with Option 2 outlined in the enclosed letter from Gregg Zimmerman, City of
Renton Planning/Building /Public Works Administrator to Mr. Jim Morrow, City of Tukwila
Director of Public Works, dated October 4, 2000. The 1.92 acres of creation includes 1.67 acres
required for the project and an additional 0.25 acres, which will replace the Oakesdale Business
_Park wetland buffer encumbrance on the site.
er
• r
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
October 4, 2000
Mr. Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
CIT` OF RENTON
Planning /Building /Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: ' OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK WETLAND BUFFER ENCUMBRANCE
OPTIONS FOR THE S. 180''' GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Dear Mr. Morrow;
My engineering staff has put together two site maps of the wetland mitigation area north of S. 180 St.
based on information provided by the design consultant, BERGERJABAM. The maps show the two
existing wetlands and associated buffers, the proposed detention pond, pump station, maintenance
road and the upland area available for mitigation.
As shown in the map exhibit labeled Option 1, there is not sufficient remaining upland area (21,000
SF) to locate the 21,370 SF required for the Oakesdale Business Park wetland buffer encumbrance on
the site. In addition, a portion of the pond maintenance road and pump station occupies approximately
2,800 SF, which would further reduce the available upland area to 18,200 SF. The location of a road
in a wetland buffer is not allowed, therefore this option, based upon the current wetland mitigation
requirement of 1.67 acres, is not feasible.
However, if the project wetland impacts and corresponding mitigation were to be reduced, this option
might be feasible. Your consultant has indicated that one of the shoofly track connections will be
eliminated from the project, which may reduce the quantity of fill in wetlands A and B in Tukwila. In
which case, the reduction in wetland mitigation area needed on the site could be used to accommodate
the Oakesdale Business Park wetland buffer area that was encumbered on the site.
As you also know, our Mayor's position is that if the Oakesdale Business Park wetland buffer
encumbrance, the S. 180 Grade Separation Project wetland mitigation and storm water management
facilities cannot be accomplished on the same site, then Tukwila will need to find an alternative site
for the wetland mitigation. To resolve this problem, we have identified an alternative solution titled
Option 2.
Option 2 would be to create additional wetland area in exchange for reserving the Oakesdale Business
Park wetland buffer encumbrance on the site. We believe that this option would provide a greater
benefit to the project (see exhibit labeled Option 2) and meets the intent of our buffer encumbrance
agreement with the Oakesdale Business Park. We will need to verify that the Oakesdale Business
Park is agreeable to the City of Renton waiving buffer encumbrance in exchange for the creation of
additional wetland on the site as part of the S. 180" St. Grade Separation Project wetland mitigation.
The project wetland biologist will need to determine what the wetland creations to buffer exchange
rate should be, but our minimum acceptable exchange for wetland creation to wetland buffer
encumbrance is 0.5:1. Thus, for the 21,370 SF of buffer encumbrance, 10,685 SF (0.25 ac.) of
additional wetland area would need to be created as part of the S. 180 "' Grade Separation Project
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
Page 2
wetland mitigation. This is wetland mitigation that is in addition to the project wetland mitigation.
Under Option 2, the total amount of wetland mitigation that would be needed includes the 1.67 acres
for the project wetland impacts plus the 0.25 acres for Oakesdale Business Park buffer encumbrance
exchange for a total of 1.92 acres.
To summarize, due to the current 1.67 acres of wetland mitigation that is needed for the project, there
is not enough upland area remaining on the site to accommodate the Oakesdale Business Park wetland
buffer encumbrance and the proposed project storm water management facilities (Option 1). The
creation of additional wetland area in exchange for reserving area on the site for the Oakesdale
Business Park wetland buffer encumbrance can be accomplished on the remaining upland area on the
site and still meet the intent of wetland buffer encumbrance agreement (Option 2). If the project
wetland • impacts were to.be.reduced, then Option 1. might be feasible. In addition, the project design
needs to consider wetland buffer requirements for the existing wetlands that are on the site within the
project limits.
I trust that this information provides you the direction that is needed for you to proceed with the
design. If you have any questions, please contact Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor at
425- 430 -7248 or me at 425 -30 -7311.
Sincerely,
cc: Lys Hornsby
Ron Straka
ke9' /fr#,ez/
Gregg Zimrherman, P.E.
Planning/Building /Public Works Administrator
I I \DIVISION S \trni.I I II:.S \IKX:S\20W- 45I .duc\RJS \ux
: - t3
0
0
0
.:1
Option #1
Wetland l 'A"
Upland Area Rem ning
Area required for
Oak
Par.
s s ' Neailatiakeis t i
itigation (1.67ac)
sdale Business
Development
AP.. • 0.01
Not to Scale
Area available for
buffer encumbrance
(21,0000)
SD
Option #2
-
u(fer
Upland Area Remalnin
quired
or buffer exchange
Oakes ale Business
Pa Lk D velopment
Not to Scale
• 0. " • glt4i5=a
BACKGROUND
4. Date checklist was prepared:
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
15 October 2000
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila Public Works Department
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Design — June 2000 to December 2000
Construction — May 2001 to May 2002
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKW ILA
z
Q
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: JAN I t; L r, o 1
4-- w
re
PERMIT CENTER 6 =
South 180th Street Grade Separation - U
00
2 Name of applicant /proponent:
0
J '-
City of Tukwila co u-
w O
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2
g J .
Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard co D .
Tukwila, WA 98188 z w
f z
Contact Person: Robin Tischmak, PE Z '—
City of Tukwila w O
Public Works Department g D
6300 Southcenter Boulevard U 0
Tukwila, WA 98188 O - .
206/433 -0179 0 F-
wW
1- O
iii
U N
P 2
O H-
This project will provide substructure for the future addition of one track to the
BNSF Railroad facilities. Widening of the superstructure and adding the track
would be done at a future date by the railroad. The railroad's schedule is not
known at this time.
z
No.
if known.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Stream Study (BERGER/ABAM
Engineers Inc., Draft April 1999, Final July 2000)
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Wildlife Study (BERGER/ABAM
Engineers Inc., Draft April 1999, Final July 2000)
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Wetlands Study (BERGER/ABAM
Engineers Inc., Draft April 1999, Final December 2000 )
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Technical Information Report
(BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., Draft April 1999, Final July 2000
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Traffic Analysis (BERGER /ABAM
Engineers Inc., Draft April 1999, Addendum No. 1, November 1998, Final and
Addendum No. 2, October 2000)
z
zI
w
2
00
Nc
J =
F-
Mti
w
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, cn d
explain. w
Z
t— 0
Z I-
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, j o
O co
O — '
Grad ing Permit — Cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent w w
Department of Fish and Wildlife — HPA = - U
Corps of Engineers — Section 404 „ 0
Shoreline Management — Renton (Department of Ecology)
Critical Area Review Permit — City of Renton v
Critical Area Review Permit — City of Kent 0
Water Quality Certification — Section 401 (Department of Ecology) Z
Concurrence on Biological Assessment — National Marine Fisheries and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)
The project will reconstruct 1,660 linear feet of South 180th Street to provide a
grade separation between vehicular traffic and railroad traffic. The proposed
roadway, with five lanes, Class III bicycle route, curbs and gutters, and
sidewalks will pass under the existing railroad tracks. Bridges will be
constructed for the BNSF (three tracks), UPRR (one track), and the Interurban
Trail to pass over South 180th Street along the current alignments. Railroad
tracks will be detoured (shooflied) during construction (see attached Figures 11,
13 to 20, 23, 25, and 27).
.5 rr ':. y,. ',z;',s;ik,'C:1 :..'c;C :S' : it{« M." C ",4+; eiits": Yxmur!isgr•filiac s' es.0
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 project is located at the intersection of South 180th Street (SW 43rd Street)
and the BNSF Railroad and UPRR Railroad near the north boundary of Kent,
the southwest corner of Renton, and the southeast corner of Tukwila, King
County, Washington, in the NW 1/4 of Section 36 of Township 23N, Range 4E.
The vicinity map is attached.
�: tau.:. u::;: :�:��1:4:,:s:;.:.:::�.:...,.��w �._. •�,,- ;�:>..
1. Earth
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
a. General description of the site (underline one):
flat, rolling, hilling, steep slopes, mountainous,
other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site
(approximate percent slope)?
2.5 percent.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
The top 11 to 17 feet is silty to gravelly fill. Below
that is 5 to 17 feet of clayey to silty organic soils.
Below that is 5 to 35 feet of silty to sandy medium
dense to dense alluvium. All construction is
proposed to take place within these layers.
d. Are there surface indications or history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Excavation for the undercrossing is estimated at
45,000 cubic yards (cy). Approximately 80,000 cy
of native material will be mixed with concrete to
form the roadway seal. About 22,000 cy of gravel
fill will be required for the railroad shooflies.
Approximately 11,000 cy will come from excavated
roadway fill and 11,000 cy will be imported.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Sedimentation could occur during construction in
excavated areas if rainfall is encountered.
Because the project creates a low spot due to
excavation, surfacewater runoff will remain on
4
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
g.
2. Air
3. Water
site and will be treated with BMP erosion control
measures.
About what percent of the site will be covered
with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
The site (outside face of new wall to outside face of
new wall) will change from 80 to 100 percent of
impervious surface cover after project
construction.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plans will be prepared with the final construction
plans. These plans include a combined
detention /wet pond through which all of the
underpass storm drainage will be processed.
a. What types of emissions to the air would result
from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and
when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
Vehicle exhausts from construction vehicles, dust
during clearing, and grading preparation. These
impacts are not expected to be significant.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions
or other impacts to air, if any:
Watering will be required, as necessary, to control
dust emissions.
a. Surface
1)
Is there any surfacewater body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including
year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater,
5
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate,
state what stream or river it flows into.
In the vicinity of the project, there are six
wetlands and two streams: Springbrook
Creek and Mill Creek. Mill Creek is a
tributary to Springbrook Creek and
Springbrook flows into the Green River. A
wetlands map is attached. Wetlands in
Tukwila are currently considered to be a
part of one wetland complex — Wetland #12.
Wetland #12 is rated a Type 1 wetland with
a standard buffer of 100 feet. Wetlands are •
palustrine emergent and shrub scrub
complexes with low to moderate functional
values.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
Fill material outside the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM) will be constructed for
three temporary detour tracks (shooflies)
within 200 feet of Mill Creek. Fill for
railroad shooflies, grading, roadway
reconstruction, storm drainage facilities,
bridge construction, and wetland mitigation
will occur within some wetlands and
adjacent to others.
Minor widening of South 180th Street,
grading, roadway reconstruction, a
detention pond, and a storm drainage outfall
are proposed within 200 feet of Springbrook
Creek. Springbrook Creek is considered a
state - monitored shoreline in Renton, but not
in Kent. For Springbrook Creek impacts
within Renton, a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit Application has been
submitted. Within Kent, a stream buffer
enhancement plan is in development.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge
material that would be placed in or removed
from surfacewater or wetlands and indicate
the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
1.11 acres of wetlands will be filled and
0.9 acres of wetland buffer will be filled as a
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
result of the development of the three (3)
shooflies for the BNSF and UPRR tracks.
Wetland mitigation will occur within the
watershed to the east of the BNSF railroad
tracks and north of South 180th Street.
New wetlands will be created adjacent and
connected to existing wetlands located east
of the BNSF tracks within property owned
by the City of Renton. Refer to the
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation plan and the
City of Renton parcel boundary plan
attached. The documents demonstrate the
proposed wetland mitigation is feasible
within the site.
Fill material will be from approved off -site
quarry sources and from underpass
excavation.
Truck routes for fill material will depend on
the contractor and the off -site source. Truck
routes will be subject to approval by
Tukwila City Engineer.
4) Will the proposal require surfacewater
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
Dewatering of the wetland areas to be filled
is expected prior to placement of fill
material.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
The portion of the project crossing
Springbrook Creek is in the FEMA
floodplain. FEMA map is attached.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surfacewaters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
Proposal would not discharge any waste
materials to surfacewaters.
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
:¢7x<rL:'i .. �' "�s5�'.oaii•?,:��2 :�: *oiF.:�s:i iY.r:�t�t:�.Y,,�: > ?+<�x...,f� �...,..,:,.,.t, _ .
b. Ground
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn or will
water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
No groundwater would be withdrawn or
discharged either temporarily during
construction or permanently after .
construction.
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 serviced (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s)
is expected to serve.
No waste material would be discharged to
groundwater.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater)
1) Describe the source of runoff (including
storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if
known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
Catch basins and storm pipes will collect
runoff within the roadway and pump it into
a treatment /detention pond. From the pond,
it will drain by gravity through a pipe to
discharge into Springbrook Creek. Water
from the pond will discharge at the rate of
half of the 2 -year event and match the 10-
and 100 -year events per. Department of
Ecology (DOE).
2) Could waste materials enter ground or
surfacewaters? If so, generally describe.
Any waste materials collected during
construction or from the roadway will pass
through the new pond. This will enable the
waste materials to be caught and removed
prior to discharge into Springbrook Creek.
8
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
‘v-"
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
TESC plans will be developed to control siltation
and contamination during construction.
Treatment and detention facilities will be
designed for runoff from the completed facility.
4. Plants
a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on
the site.
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen,
other: cottonwood
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs: willows
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bull rush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil,
other
X other types of vegetation: weeds
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be
removed or altered?
Wetland vegetation, including reed canary grass,
red osier dogwood, and Salix spp. Upland grasses
and shrubs, including three deciduous trees,
blackberry, elderberry, orchard grass, tall fescue,
and velvetgrass.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
A Biological Assessment performed by the City of
Tukwila determined that five listed species had
potential to occur at the site. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), bull trout (Saluelinus
confluentus), chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), swamp sandwort (Arenaria
paludicola), and the golden indian paintbrush
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
"i�::'Y,W. iist. .. : sw
z
w
re 2
6
0
0
CO
fA W
J
H
• w
w 0
• ¢
= • d
F w
Z =
1— 0
Z I—
W
W
U 0
O CO
O 1—
u i
u' O
w
U CI)
1- _
O ~
Z
5. Animals
(Castilleja levisecta). All animal species received a
"may affect, but not likely to adversely affect"
determination. Plants received a "no effect"
determination. These determinations have
received WSDOT, NMFS, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife concurrence.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or
other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation
on the site, if any:
Wetland mitigation and replanting and ,
enhancement of area with native plants will be
implemented as required by permitting agencies.
Landscaping will be provided outside of the
roadway at adjacent properties.
a. Underline any birds and animals that have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
Birds: hawk (redtail), green heron, eagle,
songbirds, other: sparrows, ducks
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: coyote,
muskrat, weasel
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
amphibians, garter snakes.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known
to be on or near the site.
Chinook salmon (threatened), bald eagle
(threatened).
Not likely to use area; have not been known to
occur, but do occur several miles north.
A Biological Assessment performed by the City of
Tukwila determined that five listed species had
potential to occur at the site. The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), swamp sandwort (Arenaria
paludicola), and the golden indian paintbrush
(Castilleja levisecta). All animal species received a
"may affect, but not likely to adversely affect"
determination. Plants received a "no effect"
determination. These determinations have
received WSDOT, NMFS, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife concurrence.
1 0
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
c. Is the site part of migration route? If so, explain.
Juvenile chinook may use Springbrook and Mill
Creek for out migration. Adults are not known to
spawn in the project vicinity. Current creek
conditions are poor for salmon return and
spawning.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance
wildlife, if any:
Postconstruction restoration and enhancement
including stormwater treatment and detention
and wetland creation, may increase habitat value.
Project not likely to adversely effect chinook
salmon.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electrical, 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.
Electrical — for street lighting and stormwater
pumps.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
N/A
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:
N/A
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.
No environmental health hazards are anticipated.
11
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
....�_ ».,�... __.. -_c_ ssc,.; .w...�:t:«i�S�a �:s�e.i.:+sL`s� +'••t� :'ta.« :.s
b. Noise
1) Describe special emergency services that
might be required.
Site is accessible to emergency service
vehicles.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
N/A
1) What types of noise exist in the area that
may affect your project (for example, traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
None.
2) What types and levels would be created by
or associated with the project on a short- or
long -term basis (for example, traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Short -term construction noise during
daytime. Diverted traffic will increase noise
levels along detour routes.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control
noise impacts, if any:
None proposed.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Roadway, open space, Interurban Trail and
greenway, railroad, commercial, office, and
residential.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
The site has not been used for agriculture in
recent (20 +) years.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Several buildings abut the roadway throughout
the project area.
12
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
sL. Y.i+�:
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
One 840 - square -foot adjacent commercial building
with 2,400 square feet of parking.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site?
f. What is the current comprehensive plan
designation of the site?
g.
Renton — Employment Area Valley
Tukwila — Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI)
Kent — Industrial
Renton — Employment Area Valley
Tukwila — Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI)
Kent — Industrial
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
Renton — Springbrook Creek is zoned urban.
Tukwila — N/A
Kent — Springbrook Creek is not considered a
shoreline of the state.
Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
In the vicinity of the project, there are six wetland
and two streams: Springbrook Creek and Mill
Creek. Mill Creek is a tributary to Springbrook
Creek. Springbrook Creek has shoreline and
stream buffers. The wetlands in Tukwila are
currently considered to be a part of one wetland
complex — Wetland #12. Wetland #12 is rated a
Type 1 wetland with a standard buffer of 100 feet.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or
work in the completed project?
None.
j. Approximately how many people would the
completed project displace?
Workers within the small displaced business.
13
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce
displacement impacts, if any:
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is
compatible with existing and projected land use
and plans, if any:
9. Housing
The project is being designed to minimize impacts
to adjacent businesses. Detouring traffic outside
of the project area avoids displacement.
The improvements of the roadway are compatible
with existing and projected land use.
a. Approximately how many units would be
provided, if any? Indicate whether high -, middle -,
or low- income housing?
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated? Indicate whether high -, middle -, or
low - income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
N/A
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?
Tall structures: signal poles, light poles.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
No views would be obstructed by the proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic,
if any:
N/A
14
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
z
iZ
J0
00 0
CO
wi
J H
w
�
cc z d .
I w
z =
ZO
LIJ
0
'O N .
0 H
I 0
H 1=
L
..z
w
z
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Street lighting during nighttime.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
None.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The Interurban Trail.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? Is so, describe.
No permanent displacement of existing
recreational uses; however, a detour route for the
Interurban Trail will be provided and signed for
the construction duration.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts
on recreation, including recreation opportunities
to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Trail traffic will be separated from vehicular
traffic by construction of a trail bridge.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or
proposed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
No.
15
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
14. Transportation
Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any:
N/A
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site and describe proposed access to the existing
street system. Show on -site plans, if any:
This project is a public street improvement.
Vicinity map is attached.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,
what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
The corridor is served by King County Metro
Transit. The nearest transit stop is located
approximately 1 block west of the Green River
vehicular bridge, at the intersection of 180th
Street and Sperry Drive (King County Rider
Information Office). At Metro's option, the route
will be detoured or abandoned during
construction.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed
project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
N/A
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so,
generally describe.
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
. -.__.. .o�i.i('::�:.tx` 2� - -'; `i:. w 1Jicii. sa - .l:lr'..E."1't�:s.= a:.�4:�>
The project will provide grade separation between
vehicular traffic and train traffic on tracks owned
by BNSF and UPRR.
16
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be
generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
g.
15. Public Services
None. This project will not generate additional
trips. This project will enhance mobility and
safety for existing vehicular and rail traffic.
Proposed measures to reduce or control
transportation impacts, if any:
This is a transportation improvement project. The
purpose of this project is to improve safety by
eliminating the at -grade intersection /crossing of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic with train traffic.
During construction, the road will be closed to
through traffic at the west and east approaches
with the railroad to facilitate the construction and
minimize the overall time that this corridor is
interrupted with construction activities. During
the closure, detours will be clearly marked and
will include notices alerting the public that local
businesses along South 180th Street on each side
of the rail crossing are open for business and
accessible.
The congestion and travel time impacts of this
temporary closure have been evaluated and are
attached.
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example, fire protection, police
protection, health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
No. The final project will improve emergency
responses by eliminating the at -grade crossing
with the railroads.
The project will, however, result in the need to
reroute emergency services during the
construction. Fire, police, and other emergency
services have been notified and a plan will be
implemented to meet the response time
requirements.
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
...- lK:cir"1:j*Li..a:PZ:V. ;:aili4'4 :Sie, .y2 ✓«4i51i:1"14.
16.
Utilities
C. SIGNATURE
Signature:
ADMINISEPN180th.doc
Date Submitted:
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any:
Public services will be impacted during
construction. Advance notification of detours will
be used to reduce impacts. See attached public
notification plan.
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity that might be needed.
No additional utilities are proposed.
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.
Attachments
Figures
Vicinity Map
Wetlands Map
FEMA Map
Public Notification of Detours Plan
South 180th Street Grade Separation
South 180th Street Grade Separation
South 180th Street Grade Separation
South 180th Street Grade Separation
South 180th Street Grade Separation
— Stream Study
— Wildlife Study
— Wetlands Study
— Technical Info Report
— Traffic Analysis
18
Evaluation for Agency Use Only
ATTACHMENTS
Figures
Vicinity Map
Wetlands Map
FEMA Map
Public Notification of Detours Plan
South 180th Street Grade Separation -- Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Technical Info Report
South 180th Street Grade Separation — Traffic Analysis
„ '.•1? i; .. i" -;S'�: . , : L:r Y:c :,s�u....s'.a,t;_ _ r:riii;ri.': i {'..1 -: .. n ?«:. s., ..u..;��.' iY..'i':'_'.c:::.:.
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -SP
Planner: R4--
File Number: ` 0 \ _ 00 5
Application Complete (Date:
)
Project File Number:
Application Incomplete (Date:
)
Other File Numbers: [.:2,0(90 -0a c
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E- mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us
APPLICATION
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
a\ CM C U R 4- Mk cloikW , \ . C ) C ('cAZ an anent\
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS
3G 2 i-t - ct O3L (t✓lw w \(O \
Z',dA c\ O a.P
Quarter: Nl6 Section: alp__ Township O Range:
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR :
The individual who:
• has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff,
• has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development
standards, and
• is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name: R/ )\3\ SeAr\
Address: 1 11\ e. - C`% 2--C T kA-A.l\\,CA- 'P.,. oLC- (-AY) ckS
Phone:
Signature:
G.\APPHAN\SIGN.HND \SPD.doc, 06115100
c ;
FAX:
SPECIAL
PERMISSION
DIRECTOR
C fivS 1St()
. .-
1 37o 5
Date: / - / (' 2 f
i +�;1ioSZ4'.rk.4'.LlLir� )+s' ux'M i k '+ u 1;. J
4114.611,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
EXECUTED at
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplan(Tci.tukwila.wa.us
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS
PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY
ss
COUNTY OF KING
The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows:
I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application.
2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real
property, located at
for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose.
5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the
City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City.
6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for
items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days.
7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without
refund of fees.
(city), (state), on
(Print Name)
(Address)
(Phone Number)
(Signature)
•
On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes
mentioned therein.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
residing at
My Commission expires on
Information- Required: May be waived in unusual
cases, upon approval of both Public and
P PP .f Planning
Information
Waived
PbWk /Ping
Office °Use Only
Comments' "& Conditions:.
APPLICATION FORMS:
1. Application Checklist one (1) copy, indicating items
submitted with application.
pro() k. n n
2. Permit Fee ($200).
X
3. Written description of the project, the deviation being
requested and response to the applicable decision
criteria.
?CI) U 1 C.1 e_
ING CODE PARKING DEVIATION
4. A co ete description of the proposed construction
relative to rking areas, and all supporting
agreements.
5. Dimensional site plan to demonstrate parking area
consistent with Zoning Co. - requirements.
6. Parking studies as needed to demo ate adequate
parking is provided.
LANDSCAPE DEVIATION
7. Landscape plan — two (2) copies showing size and
species of existing and proposed plant materials,
required perimeter landscape types, parking areas,
buildings, walkways, transit facilities, property lines,
dimensions and area of planting beds and any
calculations necessary to demonstrate compliance with
review criteria.
TREE REGULATION DEVIATION
8. Tree survey showing size and species of existing trees,
with trees to be removed and trees to be retained noted
(unless request is for use of canopy cover method)
.
l
COMPL E APPLICATION ' ECKLIST
The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the
Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you
feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted in a later
timely manner for use at the Public Hearing (e.g., revised colored renderings). Application review will not begin
until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED.
The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in
no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development
standards.
Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670.
COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE
G.W PPHAN\SIGN.HND\SPD.doc, 06/15/00
; Required. Maybe ed in unusual
cases, upon approval of both Public.Workr and Planning
_Informat :on
:': Waived
Pb / Ping .
Office U: )nly.
Comments &:Conditions
•
9. Tree : • acement calculations per TMC 18.54.130.3 B
or canopy c. -r calculations per TMC 18.54.140 B.
10. Description of the natur- : the undue hardship
caused by strict compliance wt • e Tree Regulations,
proposed mitigation measures and jus ' ation for the
deviation from Tree Regulations.
SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE DEVIATIONS
11. Site Plan — two (2) copies showing all buildings,
parking areas, walkways, property lines, planting
areas, sensitive areas, their buffers and setbacks.
U L (XSL_�,
12. Sensitive area studies and enhancement plans to
justify a requested buffer or setback reduction and
demonstrate that the reduction will not result in a
direct or indirect short-term or long -term adverse
impact to the sensitive area.
` CID U ` CL .. �1
PC ID U��L
. CODE APPROVAL/DEVIATION
13. Complete ' :. anent Sign Permit Application" with
all supporting mat- • Is and fees ($50).
14. The following information • ould be given on the
plans:
North arrow, title, scale and date;
Vicinity map showing location and names o .djacent
roads;
Property lines;
Locations of all buildings on site;
Dimensioned elevations of building drawn to scale (for
wall signs);
Elevations, dimensions and materials of proposed
sign(s) including advertising copy;
Color elevation of proposed sign.
G:\APPHANISIGN.HND\SPD.doc, 06/15/00
ra:. ask ?a'isn`c tii >1:',....r::� ;s+f�� .,` >'1'r,:iiitiiX '+(:3l eii:3� • . . ,, ,
Carl Phelps
Public Storage Inc.
701 Western #200
Glendale, California 91201
Raymond Frey
Halsan Frey Associates
1075 Bellevue Way N.E. #117
Bellevue, WA 98004
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mary H. Murphy & Asociates
7350 Alonzo Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117
Mel Roberts
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
9421 S. 241st
Kent, WA 98031
Pete Maas
Chariman
RNTAC
18249 S.E. 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059 -8043
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR NOTICE
z
MEMORANDUM I z
w
TO: Gary Schulz 6
JU
FROM: Deb Ritter
U O�
DATE: January 18, 2001
u_
RE: South 180th Grade Separation
w 0
Revised SEPA Checklist g J
Revised Wetlands Study u-
Wetland Enhancement Plan v a
SEPA (E2000 -029) = w :
Special Permission — Wetland (L01 -005) z 1
I— 0
z I-
w
Attached are the revised SEPA checklist and Berger /Abam's Final Wetlands Study. Robin has incorporated o
your January 2nd SEPA comments into the revised checklist. The revisions to the Final Wetlands Study 0
D-
o I--
appear in Appendix D and also on the two plans which are in the inside pocket of the Study. The revisions in w
Appendix D appear to respond to the comments you made in our joint meeting on January 2nd. You may = 0
t— i=
have additional comments on the Study plans. u_ 0
z
Today I received a detailed copy of the enhancement plan for the Herrera A site, which I have also attached. 0 N
An accompanying narrative is due the week of January 21st. 0 1
z
The SEPA determination for the grade separation can't be issued until I have received your
comments on the revised checklist and Wetlands study. Please provide me with your comments the
week of January 21st.
cc: Jack Pace
1 Jack Pace -180th Grade Separation
From: Gary Schulz
To: Steve Lancaster
Date: 1/23/01 9:52AM
Subject: 180th Grade Separation
Hi Steve,
CC: Deborah Ritter
I know this project is on the hotplate so I will give my comments here.
The requested work regarding demonstrating wetland mitigation can be accomplished on the Renton is
conceptual but has calculated areas. We are showing 1.5 to 1.0 replacment of wetland and it appears to
be feasible. However, there will not be a full standard buffer of 50 feet. I'm ok with this because there is
no standard buffer for the existing wetland areas.
The mitigation site makes sense as it incorporates the expansion of wetland and will utilize existing
wetland hydrology. also, storage function will be replaced in the same area it is being removed.
The City of Renton has indicated in writing that they will allow wetland and buffer mitigation on the site.
also a stormwater facility is needed in the same area. We do not have a formal agreement yet to my
knowledge but it appears to be forthcoming.
The potential snag for the project could be other agency review -
I think the BA has been approved but mitigation ratios vary and I don't think we can know for certain.
Let me know if you have questions.
gary schulz
Page 1
Re:
Background:
City of Tukwila
To: Deborah Ritter -
From: Robin Tischmak ��'
Date: January 18, 2001
L01 -005 (Special Permission
Wetland Fill and Mitigation)
S. 180th Grade Separation
MEMORANDUM
There are six wetlands within the project vicinity, described as follows:
n !3Fr?;�:lgckA!
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Public Works James F Morrow, P.E., Director
This is a request for approval of the proposed filling of two Type 1 wetlands in Tukwila with
subsequent wetland mitigation to occur (at the rate of 1.5 to 1) at an existing wetland site in the
City of Renton. This wetland fill and mitigation is necessitated by work to be done in connection
with the South 180th Grade Separation.
The reconstruction of 1,660 linear feet of South 180th Street is being proposed to provide a
grade separation between vehicular traffic and railroad traffic. A permanent underpass (for
vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians) will be located beneath the existing rail lines, providing for
public safety while facilitating improved traffic flow on this high use arterial.
The grade separation is to be located at the intersection of South 180th (S.W. 43rd St.) and the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe ( "BNSF ") Railroad and the Union Pacific ( "UPRR ") Railroad. This
proposed grade separation is to be located near the north boundary of Kent, the southwest
corner of Renton and the southeast corner of Tukwila. The proposed roadway (with five lanes,
bicycle route, curbs, gutters and sidewalks) will pass under the existing railroad tracks. Bridges
will be constructed for the BNSF (3 tracks), UPRR (1 track) and the Interurban Trail to pass
over South 180th along the current alignments. Railroad tracks will be detoured during
construction.
Wetland A
This Type 1 wetland, over one acre in size, is located in the City of Tukwila on the north
side of South 180th within a swale running north -south between the BNSF and UPRR
rights -of -way. It is to the east of, and parallel to, Wetland B.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 433 -0179 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Deborah Ritter
Wetland Fill & Mitigation
S. 180th Grade Separation
January 18, 2001
Page 2
Wetland B
This Type 1 wetland, over one acre in size, is located in Tukwila on the north side of
South 180th Street within a swale running north -south along the west side of the UPRR
right -of -way. It is to the west of, and parallel to, Wetland A.
Wetland C
This Category 3 wetland, approximately one acre in size, is located in the City of Kent
on the south side of South 180th Street within a depression that runs north -south
between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. It is to the south of Wetlands A and B.
Wetland D
This Type 2 wetland, over one acre in size, is located in Tukwila on the north side of
South 180th Street and to the west of the project limits. It is located to the west of
Wetland B, within a wide swale running north -south between the Interurban Trail and the
commercial - industrial properties.
Herrera Wetland A
This Category 2 wetland, approximately 5 aces in size, is located in Renton in the
western side of the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of South 180th.
Herrera Wetland B
This Category 2 wetland, approximately one - quarter of an acre in size, is located in
Renton in the southwest corner of the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of
South 180th.
Project Description:
The development of three temporary detours for the BNSF and UPRR tracks will necessitate
the filling of 1.11 acres of wetland (Wetlands A and C) and 0.9 acres of the buffer of Wetland A.
Impacts to Wetlands B, D, Herrera A and Herrera B and their associated wetland buffers will be
entirely avoided.
Per TMC 18.45.080(B), the construction of essential streets, roads and rights -of -way to be
located within a sensitive area or buffer is permitted, subject to administrative review and
approval by the Director of Community Development. Filling of a wetland and its buffer may
occur only with the permission of the Director under TMC 18.45.080(C)(6). Per TMC
18.45.080(C)(1) and (2), compensatory wetland mitigation is required for this work, at the ratio
of 1.5 to 1 (i.e., 1.67 acres).
Deborah Ritter
Wetland Fill & Mitigation
S. 180th Grade Separation
January 18, 2001
Page 3
Mitigation measures will rely on wetland creation along with buffer enhancement as
compensation for impacts to Wetlands A and C. Under Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
the wetland replacement ratio is 1.5 to 1, with a minimum of 1.67 acres of wetland replacement
required. The proposed wetland mitigation is expected to occur in Herrera A and its associated
buffer and has received preliminary approval by the City of Renton. However, Wetlands A and
C will not be disturbed until such time as the following have been reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development:
1. A detailed mitigation plan for the Herrera A site has been provided meeting the
criteria listed in TMC 18.45.080(C)(2)(d).
2. Written approval of the mitigation plan for the Herrera A site has been provided
by the City of Renton.
3. Written agreement between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad ( "BNSF ")
and the City of Tukwila authorizing the Tukwila Public Works Department to
perform work on BNSF property in connection with the wetland fill and track
detour.
4. Written agreement between the Union Pacific Railroad ( "UPRR ") and the City of
Tukwila authorizing the Tukwila Public Works Department to perform work on
UPRR property in connection with the wetland fill and track detour.
Attached is the "Final Wetlands Study" prepared by Berger /Abam, dated December 2000. A
wetland enhancement plan is being developed for your review in the coming weeks.
V J..... %1k..u:
January 19, 2001
Robin Tischmak
Senior Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 101
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Wetland Fill & Mitigation
South 180th Grade Separation
L01 -005 (Special Permission)
Dear Robin:
Your application for a Special Permission on the above - referenced project has been found to be complete as
of January 19, 2001 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. Essentially, this means
that you have supplied the required items listed on the application checklist for this type of permit.
I have enclosed two laminated copies of the Notice of Application to post on each of the notice boards. After
installing the Notices on the boards, please return the executed and notarized Affidavit of Posting to me (also
enclosed).
We are about to commence our technical review process, which is the next phase in the processing of your
Special Permission Application. Although your application has been found to be "complete ", the items you
supplied may have to be revised or amended. The City may also require that you submit additional plans
and information to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City and to finalize the
review process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ritter
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
The following
Development
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
PROPOSAL:
City of Tukwila
City of Tukwila, Public Works Department
. 44s4 t�y''a4494 �:.n4•k`;a ?yS�` " . �
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
DATED JANUARY 22, 2001
application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community
for review and decision.
Wetland A is located in Tukwila on the north side of S. 180th within a
swale running north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights of way.
Wetland C is located in Tukwila on the south side of S. 180th within a
depression that runs north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -
of -way. Herrera Wetland A is located in Renton in the western side of
the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of S. 180th.
FILE NUMBER: L01 -005 Special Permission (Wetland Fill & Mitigation)
The development of three temporary detours for the BNSF and UPRR
tracks will necessitate the filling of 1.11 acres of wetland ( "Wetlands A
and C ") and 0.9 acres of buffer. Impacts to Wetlands B, D, Herrera
Wetland A and Herrera Wetland B and their associated buffers will be
entirely avoided. Mitigation measures will rely on wetland creation
along with buffer enhancement as compensation for impacts to
Wetlands A and C. A minimum of 1.67 acres of wetland replacement is
required (at a ratio of 1.5 to 1). Mitigation is expected to occur in
"Herrera Wetland A" and its associated buffer and has received
preliminary approval from the City of Renton (see attached plan for
location of all wetlands referenced above).
OTHER REQUIRED SEPA Determination (Tukwila)
PERMITS: Grading Permits (Tukwila, Renton & Kent)
HPA Permit & Water Quality Cert. (Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)
Section 404 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers)
Shoreline (Renton, Department of Ecology)
Critical Area Review (Renton)
The file can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.,
#100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to
the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on February 5, 2001. If you have
questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206)
431 -3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be
notified of any decision on this project.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
r^xt t3M
CO CO
m o
L7 ca
m fD
OD
m
CD
m
CD
C
CD
CO
CO
1l
c0
(D
4227z
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Dept. Of Community Development
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION .
I, HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Public Hearing
Project Number: Z-0/ 005
Determination of Non - Significance
Person requesting mailing: h & )ltr
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
K
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
i
__
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this p ?a i " I day of irks -) in the
year 20 01
•
Project Name: Wi',f(Arv/ Fit( y- fill t► rdiv (5. /gD')
Project Number: Z-0/ 005
Mailer's Signature: CQ-emA---
Person requesting mailing: h & )ltr
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this p ?a i " I day of irks -) in the
year 20 01
t,U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
() DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DID EPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
() FIRE DISTRICT #11
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2
() K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC
() K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY
( ) RENTON LIBRARY
() KENT LIBRARY
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
( ) QWEST
( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES
KENT PLANNING DEPT
( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
() PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE
( ) POLICE () FINANCE
( ) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING
() PARKS & REC. () MAYOR
( ) CITY CLERK
() PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
() MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( ) SEATTLE TIMES
() SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
7/21/00 P: \wynettaforms \FORMS \CHKLIST.doc
vv-e* n FI I l + M c\-I 9 4' of
CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS L _ 0a5
FEDERAL AGENCIES
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
',DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV
bo).PEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION'
( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS
* SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
UTILITIES
CITY AGENCIES
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
MEDIA
l.x> Who flames on A"GCA
() U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
( ) HEALTH DEPT
() PORT OF SEATTLE
( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
Q K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES
( ) FOSTER LIBRARY
( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY
( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
OLYMPIC PIPELINE
( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( ) WATER DISTRICT #20
( ) WATER DISTRICT #125
`(/CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
() BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT
RENTON PLANNING DEPT
( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU
( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE'
NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
() DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( ) HIGHLINE TIMES
•
SEPA MAILINGS
Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing)
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
*Applicant
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send these documents to DOE:
SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper)
SHORELINE MAILINGS:
Notice of Application:
Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners
within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted.
The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any
person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final
decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the
application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral
presentation made at the hearing.
Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision:
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS
Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE)
Department of Ecology Shorelands Section
State Attorney General
*Applicant
*Indian Tribes
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send these documents to DOE and Attorney General:
Permit Data Sheet
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report or memo)
Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
- Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline
— Grading Plan
- Vicinity map
SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report or memo)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed)
08/14/00 P:\PUBLIC NOTICE :MAILINGS FOR PER_ IITS.doc
4"744
2k'riyi.�seu
Carl Phelps
Public Storage Inc.
701 Western Avenue #200
Glendale, California 91201
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mary H. Murphy & Asociates
7350 Alonzo Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117
Mel Roberts
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
9421 S. 241st
Kent, WA 98031
Pete Maas
Chariman
RNTAC
18249 S.E. 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059 -8043
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR NOTICE
z
I- •
6
J U
oo
W o:
CO
w=
J �... ;
u_
u O
ga -
u_ ?
Ia
= w .
z
�
z I-
uj
U �
o:4
P 1-
w w'
F- U
Lo
.. z
w
o I-
z
City of Tukwila
Departitzent of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
DATED JANUARY 22, 2001
The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community
Development for review and decision.
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila, Public Works Department
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
LOCATION: Wetland A is located in Tukwila on the north side of S. 180th within a
swale running north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights of way.
Wetland C is located in Tukwila on the south side of S. 180th within a
depression that runs north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -
of -way. Herrera Wetland A is located in Renton in the western side of
the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of S. 180th.
FILE NUMBER: L01 -005 Special Permission (Wetland Fill & Mitigation)
PROPOSAL:
The development of three temporary detours for the BNSF and UPRR
tracks will necessitate the filling of 1.11 acres of wetland ( "Wetlands A
and C ") and 0.9 acres of buffer. Impacts to Wetlands B, D, Herrera
Wetland A and Herrera Wetland B and their associated buffers will be
entirely avoided. Mitigation measures will rely on wetland creation
along with buffer enhancement as compensation for impacts to
Wetlands A and C. A minimum of 1.67 acres of wetland replacement is
required (at a ratio of 1.5 to 1). Mitigation is expected to occur in
"Herrera Wetland A" and its associated buffer and has received
preliminary approval from the City of Renton (see attached plan for
location of all wetlands referenced above).
OTHER REQUIRED SEPA Determination (Tukwila)
PERMITS: Grading Permits (Tukwila, Renton & Kent)
HPA Permit & Water Quality Cert. (Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)
Section 404 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers) •
Shoreline (Renton, Department of Ecology)
Critical Area Review (Renton)
The file can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.,
#100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to
the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on February 5, 2001. If you have
questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206)
431 -3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be
notified of any decision on this project.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431.3665
1,
•
I .
'•• 'FAI•
• • :- ,• :-., •
City of ukwiia •
Wetland
• 1
•
•.•*'' • (Approximate_.,- - ;Z•
, "A -"
!
im =N
y •
•
Wetlan
-
Vivt
PrOjeci
I 1111111•QINIII MIN JWetla
' • r
PrOje t
0.1
Not to Scale
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998
A ll i •:• ;:.....r..4.. :............1....." 4
4
•..., -,.■ NNE
•
$.t
t
• z
- ;
• i...4-1
01:
•
- lz
f
.1;
• '
11111111111 MI' MI MINI jail
,.*■■■ 1. . 4..
1, • •••••■., •
.. : ........... —•
• .
,Wet and 4_ „
• :
"'NM mioupat'jlisi • emi• AN' =a ma
•
' •"
:
•% •••••••
' •
. , , • .• •
--‘4.
..
•
•
OM
- •
•
i • 7
Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor
South 180th Street Grade Separation
.::r-liiitsse
14‘..
•
•11
• • A
Figure 9
fr
North
State of Washington
County of King
City of Tukwila
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplan(lici.tukwila.wa.us
AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING
OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S)
I i1abi n Ti Sch Anal< (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila
Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance
of the Notice of Completeness.
I certify that on '' the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section
18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at
SF)L&Y) g so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular
access to the property for application file number L(9) - 03 5 .
I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the
sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a
Notice letter.
tei
My commission expires on
Applicant or Project Manager's Signature
On this day personally appeared before me t to me known
to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged thatihe4she signed the same
er voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2.�j day of vAV1'ti c X10
NO'I"A PUBLIC in and or the State of Washington
residing at
s / % - 0---
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
TO: Robin Tischmak
FROM: Steve Lancaster
DATE: February 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM
RE: South 180th Grade Separation
(L01 -005) Special Permission
Proposed Wetland Fill and Mitigation
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Your proposal for the above - referenced grade separation includes the development of
three temporary track detours of the Burlington Northern Santa -Fe and Union Pacific.
This will require the filling of 1.11 acres of wetland and 0.9 acres of wetland buffer,
located in the City of Tukwila. These affected Type 1 wetlands are identified as Wetlands
A and C in the "Final Wetlands Study" prepared by Berger /Abam, dated December, 2000.
Per TMC 18.45.080(B), the construction of essential streets, roads and rights -of -way to
be located within a sensitive area or buffer is permitted, subject to administrative review
and approval by the Director of Community Development. Filling of a wetland and it
buffer may occur only with the permission of the Director under TMC 18.45.080(C)(6).
Per TMC 18.45.080(C)(1) and (2), compensatory wetland mitigation is required for this
work, at the ratio of 1.5 to 1 (i.e. 1.67 acres).
It is our understanding that Renton has given you its preliminary approval to locate the
proposed wetland mitigation in that city. The receiving site of the mitigation is to be an
existing wetland and associated buffer identified as "Herrera A" in the Berger /Abam study.
The mitigation will be 1.67 acres in size and will be designed to improve the vegetation
community structure and diversity of Herrera A.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS:
Your proposed wetland mitigation has been approved subject to the following conditions.
1. A detailed mitigation plan for the "Herrera A" wetland site meeting the criteria listed
in TMC 18.45.080(C)(2)(d) shall be approved by the Director of Community
Development prior to any wetland disturbance.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Robin Tischmak
S. 180th Grade Separation
Request for Wetland Fill & Mitigation (L01 -005)
February 8, 2001
Page 2
2. The implementation of the approved mitigation plan will occur prior to, or in
• concurrence with, the filling of Wetlands A and C.
cc: Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works
Brian Shelton, City Engineer
Deborah Ritter, Associate Planner
Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
State of Washington
County of King
City of Tukwila
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplanOci.tukwila.wa.us
AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING
OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S)
I Robin \Isar\ rnP%IG (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila
Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance
of the Notice of Completeness.
I certify that on 2. - 9 -. 0 I the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section
18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at
k C9`t so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular
access to the property for application file number 1 Q - Ol')
I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the
sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a
Notice letter.
- �Applicant or Project Manager's Signature
On this day personally appeared before me Y5\ �.�∎v��V---- to me known
to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged th she signed the same
agaher voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ` day of �Z°J c,i---0 2-3
e
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
residing at �� C
My commission expires on
i. 4v : �:�.>:.Y- ..i,�:= y.k�..t;:;S,T�. ryes .,:�".;:s„;;;:f:,:+.�!:::Ls�.y e.. J: d: 3l; irf�ri: il.. �. r2a; a. �t�.: :c+..�.:.::..:G�..;.�:a.; .•ya,a, wati. �. ti..f,li�r:� ".. i: - ? " +$.4i,!t�:ii,ittir:(...... +1I..,r'..x::
Dept. Of Community Development
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I , HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Public Hearing
Project Number: Lo-WOOS
Determination of Non - Significance
Person requesting mailing: d0 ASi->tur
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
__
__
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail : Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
%
Other
M2 /ice_ c,t D c i 5 / 01
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 9 Y1' day of Lb in the
year 20 0/
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
•
Project Name: 5p er;ca-I / rn-i - Watixin4 511 1"- H' Ili a4 w,
Project Number: Lo-WOOS
Mailer's Signature: 6/1;., (J. /A `A--
Person requesting mailing: d0 ASi->tur
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 9 Y1' day of Lb in the
year 20 0/
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Carl Phelps
Public Storage Inc.
701 Western Avenue #200
Glendale, California 91201
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mary. H. Murphy & Asociates
7350 Alonzo Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117
Mel Roberts
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
9421 S. 241st
Kent, WA 98031
Pete Maas
Chariman
RNTAC
18249 S.E. 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059 -8043
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR NOTICE
z
_ I-
��..
. w mow
00
.fA
N w;
1.112
J
SQ
Wo
=J
I
z :
z
I- 0,
z
Lu
D . 0 ..
o -
o '-
•to
H U
~:
o
ui
o
o �
z
�Q(( U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
() FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
() OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
( ) bFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
() DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
() BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11
() FIRE DISTRICT #2
() K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
() K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC
'ad ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY
() RENTON LIBRARY
() KENT LIBRARY
() CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
( ) QWEST
() SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
() PUGET SOUND ENERGY
() HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES
P$KENT PLANNING DEPT
( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
( ) PUBLIC WORKS
( ) POLICE
() PLANNING
() PARKS &
( ) CITY CLERK
() PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( ) SEATTLE TIMES
( )SOUTH. COUNTY JOURNAL
7/21/00 P: \administrativeforms \FORMS \CHKLIST.doc
4 4 ‘4444
CH. .(LIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PL .1IT MAILINGS
() FIRE
( ) FINANCE
( ) BUILDING
()MAYOR
FEDERAL AGENCIES
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
_- DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV
DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION'
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
SEND CHKLIST WA DETERMINATIONS
* SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
UTILITIES
CITY AGENCIES
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
MEDIA
(>( 1 )Rct c9n PcyttAc.ikC u r
oO 5
leek" (1a t�� *
L cc5 Qt
( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
() U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
( ) HEALTH DEPT
( ) PORT OF SEATTLE
( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES
( ) FOSTER LIBRARY
( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY
( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE
( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( ) WATER DISTRICT #20
( ) WATER DISTRICT #125
( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
( ) BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT
' RENTON PLANNING DEPT
) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU
( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE*
* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
() P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( ) SOUND TRANSIT
( ) HIGHLINE TIMES
: f4Gr:?: etiikJ;+' rtrri.:` ed: e7� !y }t;.u.Ni
SEPA MAILINGS
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS
Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing)
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
*Applicant
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send these documents to DOE:
SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper)
SHORELINE MAILINGS:
Notice of Application:
Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners
within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted.
The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any
person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final
decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the
application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral
presentation made at the hearing.
Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision:
Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE)
Department of Ecology Shorelands Section
State Attorney General
*Applicant
*Indian Tribes
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send these documents to DOE and Attorney General:
Permit Data Sheet
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report or memo)
Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline
Grading Plan
Vicinity map
SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report or memo)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed)
02/05/01 P: \PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS.doc
41ts17r?m:.Iy �w^rnn+wl "MOW
J
Pete Maas
Chariman
RNTAC
18249 S.E. 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059-8043
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR NOTICE
Carl Phelps
Public Storage Inc.
701 Western Avenue #200
Z
Glendale, California 91201
Ms. Mary Murphy 0 o
u) 0
Mary. H. Murphy & Asociates co lii
7350 Alonzo Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117 L u 0
Mel Roberts g 5
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board w
9421 S. 241st I' a
I- ILI
X
Kent, WA 98031 z
• o
, z I-.
uj
• 0
.0 S
O I-
I C.)
0
P
O I
Z
Location:
City of Tukwila
NOTICE OF DECISION
FEBRUARY 9, 2001
TO: Tukwila Public Works Department, Applicant
King County Assessor, Accounting Division
State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington State Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Office of the State Attorney General
King County Department of Natural Resources
City of Renton
City of Kent
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mr. Mel Roberts, Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
Pete Maas, RNTAC
Carl Phelps, Public Storage Inc.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project File Number: L01 -005 (Special Permission — Wetland Fill & Mitigation)
Applicant: City of Tukwila Public Works Department
Project Description: The proposed filling of two wetlands in Tukwila (Wetland A, a Type 1 and
Wetland C, a Type 3) with subsequent wetland mitigation to occur (at the rate
of 1.5 to 1) at an existing wetland site in the City of Renton (Herrera Wetland A).
This wetland fill and mitigation is necessitated by work in connection
with the S. 180th grade separation.
Associated Files: E2000 -029 (SEPA Determination)
SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on January 24, 2001.
The proposed wetland fill and mitigation has been approved subject to the following conditions:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project
and permit approvals.
Wetland A is located in Tukwila on the north side of S. 180th with a swale running
north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. Wetland C is located in
Tukwila on the south side of S. 180th within a depression that runs north -south
between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. Herrera Wetland A is located in
Renton in the western side of the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of
S. 180th.
1. A detailed mitigation plan for the Herrera A wetland site meeting the criteria listed in TMC
18.45.080(C)(2)(d) shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to any
wetland disturbance.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Notice of Decision
February 9, 2001
Page 2
1. The name of the appealing party.
Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development
City of Tukwila
2. The implementation of the approved mitigation plan will occur prior to, or in concurrence with, the
filling of Wetlands A and C.
Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
The time period for administrative appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision,
February 9, 2001. The administrative body hearing the appeal is the Tukwila Planning Commission. All
appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall
include:
2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation,
association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive
notices on the appealing party's behalf.
3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. The
Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision
being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope
of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal.
Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are
available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.,
Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The
project planner is Deborah Ritter, who may be contacted at 206 -431 -3663 for further information.
.::.+-` is�. i% isH�:. ti«:. x.:• i. 3,: �. �4: v. T. ;u1;:3::w:3d,:iTF >it:J:.`:c•::: n' sTi= �+ i:,. d; �fc :Mi%JaC�.i�:;::ei.'• <.r�.�3a� S: ; A: ri�. SSaCiS;..'v:r- 5:= :C4::lili�:� =.w
0
CD
›.
0
c CD
11)
OD (D
r e )
0
U (J)
( 11)
(D
D_ 0,
(D
CD F
(D
D C)
03 0
:1
6 8-
m
CO
C
- (1 - 3
0
..;# •
• 4
' .... ..•
re. r.. .
.,,-, Er' i. Vi
• le' \ 1 1 IAA t ., i.h.y
"I .1 ..., ki,1 - a •a#
..: ' ,
,..: $0-
-
• li i. 0 - •,••!
4orillyt* • r r6 !i'
,, $:....u.......
x:.
x ,., -
, , _ . ,'
4.1dAi)..
11.
1 .4 )• ars -2.
1 .. s I- 1
. .i,I 11 0ti' 1 .:..1 I
i i ...,,, tt.,, I l'• r r = i .:: ., - ..f • . V/
! . VC.; A.11;!. ,. ; ! . y :- !. .1 "'1'.: : - 114ezt!-::; .; 1
... ... I.. mill ,,,,,
! ful • • , .A • : ? s i • .
1=8
1111111 NM NM MIN 1111111•1'11111 Mil
,;• ;
Lep 11**111;*4.4001Pett all • Lia, 10.441
; s I
II
q f K41 a 14 I
- 31
ma FEN MI
• •
i* . • :.•" .•.e • • •• • i•L‘hei;i!'"..`• ; ; k! 4 ;!:.W •.
' t‘ -:•i"..1113;1024444/1.#1. ; • ...!••••• • • . • -.
sh,N
I .4144, r4•11
Lir -,
t ••••••
..(1)
fs - E!
(r",•- ql !*
t 4
A . .:•• u
P fi rle,j94/4/
1.
1/7:1 4: " ., G
t- •
-!, , • tsigt ,
s *A W/V4 ti‘f`kveci."— _ , :=
.!-
f;. `0, 1 • 1 1 =WIEN
F
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
CF
:(LIST:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
() FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
z IKDEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
' DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
�() FFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
() DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
() BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
() FIRE DISTRICT #11
() FIRE DISTRICT #2
() K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
() K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC
'(k1'K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY
() RENTON LIBRARY
() KENT LIBRARY
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
( ) QWEST
( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY
()HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
() SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES
PI.KENT PLANNING DEPT
( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
() PUBLIC WORKS
() POLICE
() PLANNING
() PARKS &
( ) CITY CLERK
() PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( ) SEATTLE TIMES
( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
( ) FIRE
() FINANCE
( ) BUILDING
()MAYOR
7/21/00 P: \administrativeforms \FORMS \CHKLIST.doc
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE P.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
-- s X DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV
DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION'
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
SEND CHKLIS W/ ETERMINATIONS
" SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
• SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
UTILITIES
CITY AGENCIES
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
MEDIA
L)<- tl c- C
L-04 0
,JIIT MAILINGS ?0(3
C 1'1L Cc vv
() U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. (n0
() HEALTH DEPT
( ) PORT OF SEATTLE
( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
ixj.K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
() K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES
() FOSTER LIBRARY
( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY
( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
() RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE
( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( ) WATER DISTRICT #20
( ) WATER DISTRICT #125
( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
() BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT
RENTON PLANNING DEPT
CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( -CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU
( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE*
* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
() P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( ) SOUND TRANSIT
( ) HIGHLINE TIMES
Nr �- c- 4-1,Oh
Carl Phelps
Public Storage Inc.
701 Western Avenue #200
Glendale, California 91201
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mary H. Murphy & Asociates
7350 Alonzo Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117
Mel Roberts
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
9421 S. 241st
Kent, WA 98031
Pete Maas
Chariman
RNTAC
18249 S.E. 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059-8043
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR NOTICE
z
< •
I I - .
z
• w
_1
O 0:
U)
• W
W
w 0
g
u_ <
CO
-
F- • W
Z
0
Z
W
O • D
O I- . uj
• 0
r -
I
-
. Z
w
0
1
0
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF DECISION
FEBRUARY 9, 2001
TO: Tukwila Public Works Department, Applicant
King County Assessor, Accounting Division
State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington State Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Office of the State Attorney General
King County Department of Natural Resources
City of Renton
City of Kent
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mr. Mel Roberts, Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
Pete Maas, RNTAC
Carl Phelps, Public Storage Inc.
Location:
This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project
and permit approvals.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project File Number: L01 -005 (Special Permission — Wetland Fill & Mitigation)
Applicant: City of Tukwila Public Works Department
Project Description: The proposed filling of two wetlands in Tukwila (Wetland A, a Type 1 and
Wetland C, a Type 3) with subsequent wetland mitigation to occur (at the rate
of 1.5 to 1) at an existing wetland site in the City of Renton (Herrera Wetland A).
This wetland fill and mitigation is necessitated by work in connection
with the S. 180th grade separation.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Wetland A is located in Tukwila on the north side of S. 180th with a swale running
north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. Wetland C is located in
Tukwila on the south side of S. 180th within a depression that runs north -south
between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. Herrera Wetland A is located in
Renton in the western side of the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of
S. 180th.
Associated Files: E2000 -029 (SEPA Determination)
SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on January 24, 2001.
The proposed wetland fill and mitigation has been approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A detailed mitigation plan for the Herrera A wetland site meeting the criteria listed in TMC
18.45.080(C)(2)(d) shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to any
wetland disturbance.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665
tilC'ajL:n.+4A.A1".:ii.ifiSi:: "vim.(.: tii±i� A�c3 +:t.lQirn`v'i JL4hL"tlL+ . w Yi]:i61'Y11�iLiw3L4S't""'nz
Notice of Decision
February 9, 2001
Page 2
2. The implementation of the approved mitigation plan will occur prior to, or in concurrence with, the
filling of Wetlands A and C.
Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
The time period for administrative appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision,
February 9, 2001. The administrative body hearing the appeal is the Tukwila Planning Commission. All
appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall
include:
1. The name of the appealing party.
2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation,
association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive
notices on the appealing party's behalf.
3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. The
Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision
being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope
of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal.
Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are
available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.,
Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The
project planner is Deborah Ritter, who may be contacted at 206 -431 -3663 for further information.
Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development
City of Tukwila
v- .�:iU.�il.:riit�4C,iA.fi��, w. w' w§ l: t' r�l it3j .i:sY.+d.+i4::fi ✓aHL'.+_a.'�
•
tV4tit
4.4
4-t ;4 0. ; ;'4e47'trard • 7:•
. • • '7. •"•...!, - 1...
•
:
?,.7‘..4 4 1 .1Netland:
,
I= rim A
Project L' mits I . L .• 11.
•
14
'Jot to Scale
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998
CC
0 ."
Ca?
A
7 7 • .„, , „ „ ,
''''.-Prrtr""74Y;t743"1::, •
(..■•• , "
• \., - 4
„ • '''' •
-•"'“ • - • ; ' •
• "
• '
AProjectLim
1.1 mil I.. i■
• ,, , •
,
4.
‘,;! ; 7-77 1
:Ix, III ;A.A. simi :as imorpi
fL" •
zyProjec Am' t
Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Api,4.0)
Figure 9
. •
• •
North
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Gary Schultz
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300 South Center Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Schultz:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 3755
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -3755
Iii iY 1 8 mil
CtrY po F S TUKyv
•
PERMIT ()E—AITI:c.
•
F f :?,2
4 9 /1 �,�
Reference: 2001 -4 -00137
Tukwila, City of
The regulations which govern our permit program contain a series of nationwide
permits (NWP). Each NWP authorizes a specific category of work, provided certain
conditions are met. The NWP 23 (Federal Register, December 13, 1996, Vol. 61, No.
241 and /or March 9, 2000, Vol. 65, No. 47) authorizes " Approved Categorical
Exclusions." The entire text of NWP 23 and its conditions are enclosed.
The NWP 23 authorizes "activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another Federal agency..." This NWP 23
authorizes the construction of three temporary detour bridges for railroad tracks while a
grade separation undercrossing is being built on South 180 Street in the city of
Tukwila, King County, Washington. During construction of the detour bridges,
permanent fill will be placed in 1.11 acres of wetland. Mitigation for these impacts is the
restoration of 1.9 acres of degraded wetland, at a site south of, and adjacent to the
project area.
The purpose of this project is to construct a grade separation on South 180
Street between vehicular traffic and the railroad tracks. In addition, Tukwila proposes to
widen South 180 slightly in order to allow for bicycle traffic.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the Federal lead agency for this
project and has completed the necessary coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. A copy of the biological assessment and copies of the concurrence letters
have been submitted to this office. The services will be informed of this permit
issuance.
.. -rte a*.R �...- _,........,.. `._`� ". - - -_ ... ..��;.+i:: t'a- :.0 »• -,ps;,
Special Conditions
2
FHWA, as the Federal lead agency, has verified that a consultation with the
SHPO/THPO and Tribal consulting parties was conducted, to determine that no cultural
or historical sites will be impacted by this project.
The State of Washington has partially denied 401 Water Quality Certification
(WQC) and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Response under certain
conditions. You need to check with Ecology to determine any further 401 WQC
requirements. Please telephone or send your plans to the following prior to starting
work:
Washington State Department of Ecology
Loree' Randall
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600
Telephone (360) 407 -6068
You must send us a copy of the individual 401 WQC authorization for our file. In
order for this NWP to be valid, you must comply with any conditions the State includes
in their 401 WQC. You may then proceed to construction.
If more than 180 days pass and the State has not responded to your individual
401 WQC request, the 401 WQC becomes waived. To confirm this, you must send us a
copy of only your 401 WQC application and then receive a letter from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers before proceeding with your proposed work.
1. The wetland area created as mitigation for work authorized by this
permit, shall not be made the subject of a future individual or general
Department of the Army permit application for fill or other development,
except for the purposes of enhancing or restoring the mitigation
associated with this project. In addition, a description of the entire 14-
acre mitigation area identified in the final mitigation plan as approved,
and any subsequent permit mitigation area revisions, will be recorded
with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with
the responsibility for maintaining records to or interest in real property.
Proof of this documentation must be provided to the Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District within 30 days of the issuance of this permit.
2. A status report on the mitigation construction, including as -built
drawings, must be submitted to the Regulatory Branch, Corps of
Engineers, 13 months from the date of permit issuance. Annual status
reports are required until mitigation construction is complete.
3. The "south 180 Street Grade Separation Wetlands Study and
Mitigation Plan (May 2001) must be implemented. Annual mitigation
monitoring reports will be due annually after the mitigation work is
Enclosures
3
completed. All reports must be submitted to Seattle District,
Regulatory Branch.
4. A plan view of the entire site owned by the City of Renton must be
included with the as -built drawings, showing the overall restoration
plan for the site, and highlighting the specific area that is proposed as
mitigation for this project.
5. The perimeter of the portion of the City of Renton site that is to be used
for mitigation for this project must be clearly marked on site to facilitate
monitoring, in such a way as to distinguish it from the remainder of the
site.
This NWP verification will be valid until 2 years from the date of this letter. Our
regulations state that if your project is under construction, or under contract to construct,
before the expiration date, then the NWP authorization will remain in effect for 12
additional months. If you are not under contract, you must contact this office to
determine permit requirements.
If the project meets all the conditions, you will need no further authorization from
us for the above - described project. You must still comply with other Federal, State, and
local requirements which may pertain to the project. When you have finished the work,
please fill out and return the enclosed compliance statement. If you have any
questions, please contact me at telephone (206) 764 -6951.
Sincerely,
Anne Robinson, Project Manager
r << i. i..:'vt::. ,: 3.ut'A'C1.cEi4SSet•,l.:ar'(x . i..uaxL
NATIONWIDE PER,..1T /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 .,,ENE 2000
23. Approved Categorical Exclusions. Activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulation for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.), that the activity, work, or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the
Office of the Chief of Engineers (ATTN: CECW -OR) has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination. Prior to approval for
purposes of this NWP of any agency's categorical exclusions, the Chief of
Engineers will solicit public comment. In addressing these comments, the
Chief of Engineers may require certain conditions for authorization of an
agency's categorical exclusions under this NWP. (Sections 10 and 404)
l otificat on;Requiremen Ye rn1all ins tance
ational Regional Conditions 13 Notificatronari
esource` Waters for specific requ�remen
x r rr
e' Re gionalrCondit�on
b) , DesignatedxC
Regional Conditions —
1. The discharge is not authorized in documented habitat for State -
listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species. Contact
the Ecology Regional office for information.
2. Notification is required for projects within the state of Washington.
EPA, Puyallup Tribe, and Chehalis Tribe 401
Certification — Denied without prejudice. An individual 401
Certification is required for all Section 404 activities.
State 401 Certification — Partially denied without prejudice. An
individual 401 Certification is required for projects authorized under this
NWP if required by any State Regional General 401 Condition.
CZM Consistency Response — Partially denied without
prejudice. An individual CZM Consistency Response must be obtained
for projects that the Seattle District has not yet determined are in
compliance with ESA, or that require individual 401 Certification, and
that are located within counties in the coastal zone. Consistency with
CZM cannot be determined until any necessary consultation or
concurrence required under ESA is completed. The State's CZM
review will start upon completion of ESA requirements.
G4�. ��'.-. �R+ n' M1�`l n�PPA: Y�F?3r1:'•! �'>'! �?" ���x? ��, kl h�i.'t *'7.s'S�hsr'lt:Mi'.'�!:. 'l�ti'3�T�,
NATIONWIDE PERM CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUk.: 2000
CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS
National Conditions. The following general conditions must be followed in
order for any authorization by an NWP to be valid:
1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on
navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly
maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and
sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating
condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as
any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be
permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the
movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody,
including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams
must be installed to maintain low flow conditions.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on
mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and Case -By -Case Conditions. The activity must comply with
any regional conditions which may have been added by the division
engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions
added by the Corps or by the State or tribe in its Section 401 water quality
certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the
National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by
Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the
river is in an official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency,
with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in
writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and
Scenic River designation, or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic
Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management
agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights,
including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and
hunting rights.
1
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000
13. Notification.
Federal Endangered Species Act. In the absence of separate
authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion
with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non-
lethal "takes" of protected species are in violation of the Endangered
Species Act. Information on the location of threatened and
endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly
from the offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service or their world wide web pages at
http: / /www.fws.gov /r9endspp /endspp.html and
http: / /www.nfms.gov /prot_res /esahome.html, respectively.
12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect historic properties listed,
or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized,
until the DE has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR part 325, Appendix
C. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the
authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed, determined to be
eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and shall not
begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements
of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the
activity is authorized. Information on the location and existence of historic
resources can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office and
the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). For
activities that may affect historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in,
the National Register of Historic Places, the notification must state which
historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity
map indicating the location of the historic property.
(a) Timing: Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective
permittee must notify the District Engineer with a preconstruction
notification (PCN) as early as possible. The District Engineer must
determine if the PCN is complete within 30 days of the date of receipt
and can request the additional information necessary to make the PCN
complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not
provide all of the requested information, then the District Engineer will
notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the
PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested
information has been received by the District Engineer. The
prospective permittee shall not begin the activity:
(1) Until notified in writing by the District Engineer that the actiyity
may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed
by the District or Division Engineer; or
3
�::�.•..:,:�'.1:.,. ... '+ u= ��...,::t:.�_.'.:Li::u: -iir., iii)«:::; iPyaf la.,a�i�J'iti�..i....,M:�..�
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
(8) For NWP 27, Stream and Wetland Restoration, the PCN must
include documentation of the prior condition of the site that will be
reverted by the permittee.
(9) For NWP 29, Single- Family Housing, the PCN must also include:
(I)
Any past use of this NWP by the individual permittee and /or
the permittee's spouse;
(ii) A statement that the single - family housing activity is for a
personal residence of the permittee;
(iii) A description of the entire parcel, including its size, and a
delineation of wetlands. For the purpose of this NWP,
parcels of land measuring 1 /4 acre or less will not require a
formal on -site delineation. However, the applicant shall
provide an indication of where the wetlands are and the
amount of wetlands that exists on the property. For parcels
greater than 1/4 acre in size, a formal wetland delineation
must be prepared in accordance with the current method
required by the Corps. (See paragraph 13(f));
(iv) A written description of all land (including, if available, legal
descriptions) owned by the prospective permittee and /or the
prospective permittee's spouse, within a one mile radius of
the parcel, in any form of ownership (including any land
owned as a partner, corporation joint tenant, co- tenant, or
as a tenant -by- the - entirety) and any land on which a
purchase and sale agreement or other contract for sale or
purchase has been executed;
(10) For NWP 31, Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Projects, the
prospective permittee must either notify the District Engineer with
a PCN prior to each maintenance activity or submit a five year (or
less) maintenance plan. In addition, the PCN must include all of
the following:
(i)
Sufficient baseline information so as to identify the approved
channel depths and configurations and existing facilities.
Minor deviations are authorized, provided the approved flood
control protection or drainage is not increased;
(ii) A delineation of any affected special aquatic sites, including
wetlands; and,
(iii) Location of the dredged material disposal site.
5
r': .11C. C ar:e4i44 X4�'�`'
7
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000
(19) For NWPs 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44, where the proposed
work involves discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States resulting in permanent, above -grade fills within
100 -year floodplains (as identified on FEMA's Flood Insurance
Rate Maps or FEMA - approved local floodplain maps), the Z
notification must include documentation demonstrating that the
proposed work complies with the appropriate FEMA or FEMA- w
approved local floodplain construction requirements.
J
o
(c) Form of Notification: The standard individual permit application form o
(Form ENG 4345) may be used as the notification but must clearly, =
indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the information required w
in (b) (1) -(19) of General Condition 13. A letter containing the requisite w O
information may also be used. g
(d) District Engineer's Decision: In reviewing the PCN for the proposed W
activity, the District Engineer will determine whether the activity _
authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or Z
cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the w o
public interest. The prospective permittee may, optionally, submit a
proposed mitigation plan with the PCN to expedite the process and the D
District Engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation 9� Yp P p ry 9 0
the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the w uj
net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the
proposed work are minimal. If the District Engineer determines that LL o
the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that o
the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, the o F
District Engineer will notify the permittee and include any conditions
the District Engineer deems necessary.
Any compensatory mitigation proposal must be approved by the
District Engineer prior to commencing work. If the prospective
permittee is required to submit a compensatory mitigation proposal
with the PCN, the proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the
prospective permittee elects to submit a compensatory mitigation plan
with the PCN, the District Engineer will expeditiously review the
proposed compensatory mitigation plan. The District Engineer must
review the plan within 45 days of receiving a complete PCN and
determine whether the conceptual or specific proposed mitigation
would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic
environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic
environment (after consideration of the compensatory mitigation
proposal) are determined by the District Engineer to be minimal, the
District Engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant
stating that the project can proceed under the terms and conditions of
the nationwide permit.
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
(f)
District Engineer will fully consider agency comments received within
the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource
agency, except as provided below. The District Engineer will indicate
in the administrative record associated with each notification that the
resource agencies' concerns were considered. As required by Section
305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the District Engineer will provide a response to
National Marine Fisheries Service within 30 days of receipt of any
Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations. Applicants are
encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of notifications to
expedite agency notification.
Wetlands Delineations: Wetland delineations must be prepared in
accordance with the current method required by the Corps. For NWP
29 see paragraph (b)(9)(iii) for parcels less than 1 /4 acre in size. The
permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic site.
There may be some delay if the Corps does the delineation.
Furthermore, the 45 -day period will not start until the wetland
delineation has been completed and submitted to the Corps, where
appropriate.
14. Compliance Certification. Every permittee who has received a Nationwide
permit verification from the Corps will submit a signed certification regarding
the completed work and any required mitigation. The certification will be
forwarded by the Corps with the authorization letter. The certification will
include:
(a) A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the
Corps authorization, including any general or specific conditions;
(b) A statement that any required mitigation was completed in accordance
with the permit conditions; and
(c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work
and mitigation.
15. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for
a single and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage loss of
waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the
acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For
example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14,
with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum
acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot
exceed 1/3 acre.
9
k c k2 t1: >tar�kr�ni it wta J 4i lba a
id,.._�..ay.�w.u:,.�Yx,u .. �.. 41?.:S�+.i:3:w
m,:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
of any compensatory mitigation plan for projects in or near streams or
other open waters is the establishment and maintenance, to the
maximum extent practicable, of vegetated buffers next to open waters
on the project site. The vegetated buffer should consist of native
species. The District Engineer will determine the appropriate width of
the vegetated buffer and in which cases it will be required. Normally,
the vegetated buffer will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the
stream, but the District Engineer may require wider vegetated buffers
to address documented water quality concerns. If there are open
waters on the project site and the District Engineer requires
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts to ensure that the net
adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, any vegetated
buffer will comprise no more than 1/3 of the remaining compensatory
mitigation acreage after the permanently filled wetlands have been
replaced on a one -to -one acreage basis. In addition, compensatory
mitigation must address adverse effects on wetland functions and
values and cannot be used to offset the acreage of wetland losses that
would occur in order to meet the acreage limits of some of the NWPs
(e.g., for NWP 39, 1 /4 acre of wetlands cannot be created to change a
'/2 acre loss of wetlands to a 1 /4 acre loss; however, 1 /2 acre of created
wetlands can be used to reduce the impacts of a 1/3 acre loss of
wetlands). If the prospective permittee is required to submit a
compensatory mitigation proposal with the PCN, the proposal may be
either conceptual or detailed.
(d) To the extent appropriate, permittees should consider mitigation
banking and other appropriate forms of compensatory mitigation. If the
District Engineer determines that compensatory mitigation is necessary
to offset losses of waters of the United States and ensure that the net
adverse effects of the authorized work on the aquatic environment are
minimal, consolidated mitigation approaches, such as mitigation banks,
will be the preferred method of providing compensatory mitigation,
unless the District Engineer determines that activity - specific
compensatory mitigation is more appropriate, based on which is best
for the aquatic environment These types of mitigation are preferred
because they involve larger blocks of protected aquatic environment,
are more likely to meet the mitigation goals, and are more easily
checked for compliance. If a mitigation bank or other consolidated
mitigation approach is not available in the watershed, the District
Engineer will consider other appropriate forms of compensatory
mitigation to offset the losses of waters of the United States to ensure
that the net adverse effects of the authorized work on the aquatic
environment are minimal.
11
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000
designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for
comment.
(a) Except as noted below, discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16,
17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 for any activity within, or
directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent
to such waters. Discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of
the United States may be authorized by the above NWPs in National
Wild and Scenic Rivers if the activity complies with General Condition
7. Further, such discharges may be authorized in designated critical
habitat.for Federally listed threatened or endangered species if the
activity complies with General Condition 11 and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service has
concurred in a determination of compliance with this condition.
(b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36,
37, and 38, notification is required in accordance with General
Condition 13, for any activity proposed in the designated critical
resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The
District Engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after
he determines that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no
more than minimal.
26. Fills Within 100 -Year Floodplains. For purposes of this general condition,
100 -year floodplains will be identified through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA-
approved local floodplain maps.
.(a) Discharges Below Headwaters. Discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States resulting in permanent, above -grade
fills within the 100 -year floodplain at or below the point on a stream
where the average annual flow is five cubic feet per second (i.e., below
headwaters) are not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44.
For NWPs 12 and 14, the prospective permittee must notify the District
Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13 and the notification
must include documentation that any permanent, above -grade fills in
waters of the United States within the 100 -year floodplain below
headwaters comply with FEMA or FEMA- approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
(b) Discharges in Headwaters (i.e., above the point on a stream where the
average annual flow is five cubic feet per second).
13
L:.
hilfiil`.i, ^ ; 3s'.n'':HSa1�? = FS"u kikizvt,i4 -10 �i A , lye � .
_ _ � 4 �Y }1d.3 t " x c�" k " �' i.e' 3i�� k :1+ t ". : v ' 2s. �wT' �Su `:.e�eR.�i;"�.'.':.,,.si',�..
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
Corps Regional General Conditions
1. Bog and Bog -like Wetlands. The use of NWPs is specifically prohibited in
bog and bog -like wetlands or just the bog or bog -like component of a
wetland system (as defined in the Definition section of this Public Notice),
except for projects provided coverage under the following NWPs:
NWP 3(i,ii) —
NWP 20 —
NWP 32 —
NWP 38 —
NWP 40(a) —
Maintenance
Oil Spill Cleanup
Completed Enforcement Actions
Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste
USDA program participant
NOTE: NWP regulations do not allow the regional conditioning of NWP
40(a).
2. Mature Forested Wetlands. The use of NWPs is specifically prohibited in
mature forested systems or just the mature forested component of a
wetland system (as defined in the Definition section of this Public Notice),
except for projects provided coverage under the following NWPs:
NWP 3(i,ii) —
NWP 20. —
NWP 32 —
NWP 38 —
NWP 40(a) —
Maintenance
Oil Spill Cleanup
Completed Enforcement Actions
Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste
USDA program participant
NOTE: NWP regulations do not allow the regional conditioning of NWP
40(a).
3. Revegetation. Though applying to all NWPs where wetland vegetation is
temporarily removed, this condition most often applies to NWPs 12, 13, 14,
and 33 which require restoration and /or revegetation of the temporarily
impacted areas or work areas. This condition does not apply to any NWP
authorizations which require a separate mitigation plan.
Upon completion of the work authorized by the NWP, the site shall be
replanted with the appropriate native upland or wetland vegetation during
the first available planting season. Vegetation removal or destruction shall
be held to the absolute minimum necessary. The applicant shall take
appropriate measures to ensure revegetation success, as defined below.
Success is defined as 80% of the planted area being covered with native
species five years after construction is completed. If this standard is not
equaled or exceeded, remedial measures (e.g., replanting, soil
amendments, additional monitoring, etc.) may be required until success is
15
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
Condition 13 for any acreage or volume proposed. Once the SAMP is
approved; the "Notification" limits will be as specified in the individual
NWPs.
Mitigation requirements for these projects must either be onsite or within the
areas designated as "Preferred Mitigation Sites ". Mitigation plans must
comply with the requirements found within the Mill Creek Special Area
Management Plan, King County, Washington, dated April 2000.
An individual permit is required for all proposals in "Developable Wetlands"
that would have qualified for NWPs other than those listed above.
NWP 27, Stream Restoration and Enhancement Activities, can be used
within the SAMP, but, must comply with the requirements found within the
Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan, King County, Washington.
The Mill Creek SAMP applies to all areas and tributaries drained by Mill
Creek, (Auburn), Mullen Slough, Midway Creek, Auburn Creek, and the
area bounded by 4th Street Northeast in Auburn on the south, and the
Ordinary High Water mark of the Green River on the east and north.
6. Prohibited Work Times for Bald Eagle Protection. For compliance with
National General Condition 11, the following construction activity
prohibitions apply to protect bald eagles, listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act:
(a) No construction activity authorized under a NWP shall occur within 1/4
mile of an occupied bald eagle nest, nocturnal roost site, or wintering
concentration area, within the following seasonal work prohibition
times.
(b) No construction activity authorized under a NWP shall occur within 1/2
mile BY LINE OF SIGHT of an occupied bald eagle nest or nocturnal
roost site, within the following seasonal work prohibition times.
Work prohibition times:
(1) Nesting between January 1 and August 15 each year.
(2) Wintering areas between November 1 and March 31 each
year.
Exceptions to these prohibited work times can be made by request to the
Corps and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Contact the USFWS to determine if a bald eagle nest, nocturnal roost, or
wintering concentration occurs near your proposed project:
17
�ais`zius�tG;2 w�4 y� yL�ti•.'i3�is't:.tiaa'.'e
:Rt:�ti ry'ti:
r
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
Applicants whose projects or activities will not or do not meet the
above requirements must contact Ecology to request issuance of an
individual 401 Certification or a modification to the water quality
standards pursuant to WAC 173 -201A -110.
(b) For upland and wetland construction activities: An individual 401
Certification is not required under this condition for projects or activities
authorized under NWPs that meet the applicable turbidity standards in
adjacent waterbodies (per WAC 173 -201A -030).
For WDOT projects or activities authorized under NWPs, an individual
401 certification is not required under this condition for projects or
activities that are in compliance with the most current applicable
WDOT Highway Runoff Manual and the Ecology - approved Temporary
Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) document for project site plans.
Applicants whose projects or activities will not or do not meet the
above requirements must contact Ecology to request issuance of an
individual 401 Certification or a modification to the water quality
standards pursuant to WAC 173 -201A -110.
2. Stormwater Provisions. An individual 401 Certification is not required
under this condition for any project or activity authorized under NWPs
complying with applicable provisions of:
(a) the stormwater - related conditions of an HPA issued for the project or
activity; or,
(b) the most current Ecology- approved version of the Puget Sound
Stormwater Manual, the WDOT Highway Runoff Manual, or any other
Ecology- approved local stormwater manual. Compliance may be
determined by submitting a letter signed by a professional engineer
certifying that the stormwater design meets the applicable manual.
3. Compliance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). An individual 401 Certification is required
for and project or activity authorized under NWPs that are not in compliance
with all applicable requirements of a general or individual NPDES permit.
4. Pro - ects or Activities Dischar• in to Im •aired Waters. An individual 401
Certification is required for projects or activities that will discharge to a
waterbody on the state's list of impaired waterbodies (the 303(d) list) if the
discharge will result in further exceedances of the 303(d)- listed contaminant
or will result in further impairment of the listed reason for impairment of that
waterbody, except as described below:
19
•
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICTR JUNE 2000
Historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Site plans showing the 100 -year floodplain.
Other applicable requirements of Corps National General Condition 13,
Corps Regional Conditions, or notification conditions of the applicable
NWP.
A request for 401 Certification is not complete until the applicable
documents noted above have been provided to Ecology and Ecology has
received a copy of the final authorization letter from the Corps providing
coverage for a proposed project or activity under the NWP Program.
6. Compliance Certification. Applicants must provide a copy of the
compliance certification to Ecology whenever it is required to be submitted
to the Corps (as described in Corps National General Condition 14).
7. Mitigation. 401 Certification is based on adequate compensatory
mitigation being provided for wetland and other water quality - related
impacts of projects or activities authorized under the NWP Program. An
individual 401 Certification is required for projects or activities authorized
under NWPs that do not receive written approval from Ecology of proposed
mitigation plans for the following:
(a) Any fill - related impacts to Category I wetlands or other high - quality
wetlands including bogs, mature forested wetlands, vernal pools,
camas prairie wetlands, playas, and prairie potholes.
(b) Any fill - related impacts to tidal waters or to non -tidal wetlands adjacent
to tidal waters.
(c) Any Corps- required proposed compensatory mitigation plan (as
described in Corps National General Condition 13) under NWPs 14,
39, 40, 42, and 43 for any fill - related impacts greater than 1 /4 acre.
Mitigation plans submitted for Ecology review and approval shall be based
on the guidance provided in Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands
Mitigation Plans and Proposals (Ecology Publication 94 -29) and shall, at a
minimum, include the following:
(a) Evidence of wetland hydrology at the mitigation site.
(b) Completion and submittal of an "as -built report" upon construction of
the mitigation.
21
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
(a) Spill prevention and response: When operating equipment in or near
wetlands or other waters of the State, extreme care shall be taken to
prevent any petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or
deleterious materials from entering the wetlands or other waterbodies.
If a spill occurs, the operator shall immediately cease work, take steps
to contain the material, and notify Ecology's appropriate regional office. z
IX
(b) Equipment fueling: Fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves
and fittings, etc., shall be checked regularly for drips or leaks, and shall o o
be maintained and stored to prevent spills into state waters. Fueling is w
to be done only in areas designed to contain spills and not within 50
LLI
feet of wetlands. uj 0
wo
(c) No wash water discharges: Wash water containing oils, grease, or g a
other hazardous materials resulting from wash down of equipment or
working areas shall be contained for proper disposal, and shall not be w
discharged into state waters or storm drains, unless authorized through
z
a separate NPDES permit or state waste discharge permit. z o
w
(d) Disposal of material: Construction debris and excess excavated or
dredged material shall be disposed of at an upland location in a o
manner to prevent degradation of State waters. o E-
LL w
U
(e) Clean fill: Fill material used in projects or activities authorized under
NWPs shall not result in exceedances of state water quality standards z
(WAC 173- 201A), including exceedances of the surface water quality o
numeric criteria, beyond the approved area of fill. 0
z
(f)
Note: For example, fill material should not contain contaminants or
toxic substances that would leach through the material and into
wetlands or other surface waters of the state at rates or concentrations
that exceed the surface water quality numeric criteria.
Identifying construction boundaries: Prior to clearing and grading in
wetlands, the adjacent wetlands and waterbodies shall be protected
from construction impacts. Construction fencing or flagging (using
brightly colored tape at no less than twenty -five foot (25') intervals) of
the existing wetlands and other waterbodies to be protected shall be
completed prior to clearing. All project staff shall be trained to
recognize construction fencing or flagging that identifies wetland
boundaries. Equipment shall not be moved into or operated in
wetlands or other waterbodies that are not authorized to be impacted.
23
.L fd,,. ` e !"w ' -k1"4 Yi...- '
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT/7 JUNE 2000
compliance with NPDES requirements will require individual 401
Certification.
4. Projects or Activities Discharging to Impaired Waters. Projects or
activities that will discharge to a waterbody on the state's list of impaired
waterbodies (the 303(d) list) require individual 401 Certification if the
discharge may result in further exceedances of the 303(d)- listed
contaminant or will result in further impairment. The current list of 303(d)-
listed waterbodies is available on Ecology's web site at
http: / /www.wa.gov /ecology or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permits staff.
For projects or activities that will discharge to a 303(d)- listed waterbody that
does not have an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the
applicant must provide documentation for EPA approval showing that the
discharge will not result in further exceedances of the listed contaminant or
impairment.
For projects or activities that will discharge to a 303(d)- listed waterbody that
does have an approved TMDL, the applicant must provide documentation
for EPA approval showing that the.discharge is within the limits established
in the TMDL.
EPA may issue 401 Certification determination for projects or activities that
would result in further exceedances or impairment if mitigation is provided
that would result in a net decrease in listed contaminants or less impairment
in the waterbody. This determination would be made during individual 401
review.
5. Notification. For projects that will require individual 401 certification
determination, applicants must provide EPA with the same documentation
provided to the Corps (per Corps National General Condition 13), including
when applicable:
(a) Delineation of special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
(b) Proposed compensatory mitigation or restoration plans.
(c) Proposed water quality and water quantity management measures.
(d) Endangered or threatened listed species that may be affected by the
proposed work.
(e) Historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
(f) Site plans showing the 100 -year floodplain.
25
NATIONWIDE PERMIT /CORPS SEATTLE DISTRICT /7 JUNE 2000
Projects and activities that do not receive written approval of their mitigation
plan, or do not meet the conditions stated above, will require an individual
401 Certification.
Note: Characterization of wetlands shall be based on field identification and
using the "Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western
Washington, Second Edition ", dated August 1993 (Publication 93 -74) and
"Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Eastern Washington ", dated
October 1991 (Publication 91 -58) as guidance. Copies are available
through Ecology's Publications Office at (360) 407- 6000.)
9. Management of Water Flows. 401 Certification of projects and activities
authorized under NWP permits is based on guidance and /or compliance
with the applicable provisions of the most current Ecology- approved version
of the Puget Sound Stormwater Manual. Projects and activities not meeting
the applicable provisions will require individual 401 Certification.
10. Temporary Fills. An individual 401 Certification is required for any activity
where temporary fill will remain in wetlands or other waterbodies for more
than 90 days. The 90 day period begins when filling activity starts in the
wetland or other waterbody.
11. Designated Critical Resource Waters. An individual 401 Certification is
required for any proposed project or activity in waterbodies on the most
current list of the Designated Critical Resource Waters per Corps National
General Condition 25.
Critical resource waters include, NOAA - designated marine sanctuaries,
National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Wild and Scenic Rivers,
critical habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered species, coral
reefs, and outstanding national resource waters or other waters officially
designated by a Tribe as having particular environmental or ecological
significance and identified by the District Engineer after notice and
opportunity for public comment. The District Engineer may also designate
additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment.
'$ {Ix.. » t' ;Ait ati i.:6. c`?s `` :.'�[;�itzX:
12. Fills Within 100 -Year Floodplains. An individual 401 Certification is
required for any proposed project that would increase permanent, above -grade
fill within the 100 -year floodplain (including the fioodway and the flood fringe).
The 100 -year floodplain is defined as those areas identified as Zones A, A1-30,
AE, AH, AO, A99, V, V1 -30, and VE on the most current Federal Emergency
Management Agency Flood Rate Insurance Maps, or areas identified as within
the 100 -year floodplain on applicable local Flood Management Program maps.
The 100 -year flood is also known as the flood with a 100 -year recurrence
interval, or as the flood with an exceedance probability of 0.01.
27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permit Number: 2001 -4 -00137
Name of Permittee: TUKWILA, CITY OF
Date of Issuance: MAY ! 8 200;
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit,.sign
this certification and return it to the following address:
Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District, Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 3755
Seattle Washington 98125 -3755
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a
compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
representative. If you fail to comply with your authorization,
your project is subject to suspension, modification, or
revocation.
The work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of
your permit.
The mitigation required (not including monitoring) by the
above referenced permit has been completed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of your permit.
11 February- 1997
CLM7; B:CERTCOMP.97
Signature of Permittee
iit:.la:'VetSGi6�;ai+:.�':+ "`. ••F�: : �� : . f .•• -.: 'm{i.:ao."�+�'luti'_ti
I
BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC.
33301 Ninth Avenue South • Suite 300
Federal Way, Washington 98003.2600
206/431.2300 • FAX 206/431.2250
1 May, 2001
Ms. Anne Robinson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
Regulatory Branch
4735 Marginal Way South
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124 -3755
BERGER /ABAM
E N G I N E E R S I N C.
I•stafr
Re: City of Tukwila — South 180 Street Grade Separation — Corps # 2001 -00137
Revised Mitigation Plan
Dear Anne,
I am enclosing a revised Wetland Study and Mitigation Plan for the above- referenced project in response to
your comments of 4/26/01 (attached).
I have addressed the comments in the text. In addition, I have incorporated the performance standards into
the plan, so that there is one document for you to look at instead of two. Below is a brief explanation of
how each question was addressed. The list number corresponds with the list number of your questions.
1. Monitoring period: the monitoring period has been changed to 10 years
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Removal of non - natives: all non - natives, including horticultural species, will be removed. The text
states that a few cherry trees may remain. if possible, as food for birds.
3. Tukwila mitigation code: We have added the City of Tukwila mitigation standards
4. Former Page 28 — wetlands creation: We have added language explaining the process of the wetland
creation. Although the area was mapped as hydric soils, the soils in which the mitigation will be
located are not hydric — it was speculated by Herrera, who delineated this site, that the soils in this area
were old fill.
5. Evergreens phasing: We have added language stating that evergreens and plants with special
requirements, such as red -osier dogwood, will be phased or planted in shade.
6. Monitoring: We have clarified that the monitoring period will be twice yearly.
7. Monitoring years: We have added language that monitoring will occur for years 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10
and reports will be sent to the Corps and Ecology and other appropriate entities.
8. Survival and cover: We have changed the language to reflect 100% survival after the first year (the
warranty period)
9. Survival and cover: We have consulted the King County and Department of Ecology sensitive area
/wetland mitigation guidelines and have revised the survival and cover requirements per those
guidelines.
10. Saturation levels: We have rechecked the recommended ranges for saturation levels for scrub /shrub
and forested wetlands — these are an allowed range, per King County and Ecology mitigation
guidelines — we are not suggesting that the saturation/inundation levels will be at the highest levels for
3 months — just that these systems can tolerate this range.
11. Monitoring period: The monitoring period will be 10 years.
12. Monitoring method: We have added your suggestion regarding photo project pans.
13. Tree monitoring: Trees will be monitored for 10 years.
14. Weedy invasives: we have removed this statement and have provided a list of likely invasive species to
be removed.
15. Maintenance: We have changed the text to reflect your suggestion about irrigation from July 15 to Oct.
10, no more than 1" /week. Irrigation requirements will be strongly looked at during the first year to
monitor dry periods and plant needs.
16. Contingencies: We have added text to indicate that contingencies will be implemented in coordination
with the Corps, Ecology, the cities of Tukwila and Renton, and other appropriate agencies.
In addition to the above changes, the planting details in Appendix E have been revised to show more detail.
I hope that these changes have satisfactorily answered all your questions. I appreciate your efforts to help
the City of Tukwila move forward with this time- sensitive project.
If you have any additional questions, please give me a call at 206 -431 -2380, or on my mobile phone at 425-
351 -6445.
Sincere)
. Brooks
Senior Scientist/Planner
Cc: Robin Tischmak, City of Tukwila
Gary Phillips, BERGER/AB AM Engineers
TO: Gary Schulz
FROM: Deb Ritter
DATE: June 1, 2001
RE: South 180th Grade Separation
Revised Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
Special Permission — Wetland (L01 -005)
MEMORANDUM
As you know, the Army Corps permit has been issued in connection with the mitigation of the 1.67 acre
wetland site in Renton (known as "Herrera A "). Berger /Abam's revised Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan is
now ready for your review (attached). Per prior agreement with Public Works, the actual implementation of
the plan will occur prior to, or in concurrence with, the filing of Wetlands A and C along the railroad tracks.
z
;F- Z .
o: 2
UO
U)
co w
W
J �
Q u.
w O
LL a
d .
�w
zo
L11
O =
0 I-
Robin Tischmak is advertising for bids during June and would appreciate your review comments by w w
July 1st. The plan must be approved by Steve Lancaster before work can proceed. Please let me ?
know by June 6th if you will be unable to review the Mitigation Plan this month. u- ~ O
z
w
O I
z
INFORMATION MEMO
TO: Deborah Ritter
FROM: Robin Tischmak I J
DATE: June 1, 2001
SUBJECT: S 180"' St Grade Separation (Project No. 87 -RW09)
Wetland Fill Permit
In order to fulfill the conditions of the Special Permission Wetland Fill and Mitigation approval (L01-
005) dated February 8, 2001, I am submitting the attached information for review and approval:
• (2) Copies of the final wetland mitigation plan
• (2) Copies of the permit issued by the Corps of Engineers.
Please call me at ext. 1635 if you should have any questions or need additional information.
attachments: (4)
MEMORANDUM
City of Tukwila
TO: Deb Ritter, Associate Planner
Robin Tischmak, Senior Engineer
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: July 16, 2001
RE: South 180 Street Grade Separation #E2000 - 029, Wetland Mitigation Review.
The 180 Street Grade Separation project is located in Tukwila, Renton, and Kent, and
consequently, has been a cooperative effort. The project was subject to sensitive area regulations
because of an unavoidable, wetland fill impact and will provide wetland mitigation.
I have reviewed the South 180t'' Street Grade Separation - Wetland Study and Mitigation Plan
(Berger /Abam May 2001) including related comments from the Army Corps of Engineers. The
Corps have issued a permit for the project's wetland fill impact. The city of Renton has donated
land within the project site to be used for wetland mitigation. Fortunately, the mitigation property
is large enough to replace wetland area at the required ratio of 1.5 to 1.0 and its condition is very
appropriate for wetland creation/restoration.
I have no technical comments on the mitigation plan because they were previously addressed
through the Corps of Engineers staff review of their permit. The Corps of Engineers issued the
following requirements for the approval of the wetland mitigation plan:
1) The Army Corps of Engineers have issued a NWP 23 with several conditions. As required
by regional conditions, Ecology will review the project for 401 Water Quality Certification
permit. Stormwater discharge to Springbrook Creek will be reviewed by Ecology.
Currently, the 401 permit has not been issued and it is a condition of the Corps permit.
2) There are five "special conditions" included in the Corps permit and the first one is to be
addressed within 30 days after the permit was issue. Special Condition 1. requires a
recorded deed of the mitigation property, and proof of this documentation be submitted to
the Corps. Briefly, the other special conditions are to provide a construction report and
as -built drawings within 13 months from the date of permit issuance. Provide annual
monitoring reports. Submit a plan view of the entire site showing the area of mitigation
relative to the site boundaries. Field locate and mark the mitigation area to distinguish it
from the remainder of the site.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
180 Street Mitigation Memo
July 11, 2001
Page 2
The mitigation plan has a 10 -year monitoring requirement that is primarily related to tree
survival. Tukwila is the responsible party for providing the mitigation performance as described
on page 32 of the report/plan by Berger /Abam. I recommend we have a meeting to discuss the
mitigation schedule and how maintenance and monitoring will implemented
Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Jim Morrow, PW Director
Jack Pace, Planning Manager
z
W
6
J0
00
co 0
cn w
J =
F- .
CO LL
w O.
g J
u.
= d
z
o
z i--
w
U • D
• —
O I—,
-
u.
Z
w
O ~
z
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
TO: Robin Tischmak
FROM: Steve Lancaster
DATE: July 18, 2001
cc: Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works
Brian Shelton, City Engineer
Deborah Ritter, Associate Planner
Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
MEMORANDUM
RE: South 180th Grade Separation
(L01 -005) Special Permission
Proposed Wetland Fill and Mitigation
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
We have reviewed and approved the "Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan" prepared by
Berger /Abam, dated May, 2001. Per my February 8, 2001 memo to you, the
implementation of this plan will occur prior to, or in concurrence with, the filling of
Wetlands A and C.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
,U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
() DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
() BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
() FIRE DISTRICT #11
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2
( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
() K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC
( ) K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY
() RENTON LIBRARY
() KENT LIBRARY
() CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
( ) QWEST
( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
%3 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
() HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES
KENT PLANNING DEPT
( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
() PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE
( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE
() PLANNING ( ) BUILDING
() PARKS & REC. () MAYOR
() CITY CLERK
() PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( ) SEATTLE TIMES
() SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
7/21/00 P: \wyneaaforms \FORMS \CHKLIST.doc
(llandt FIII + 01\ }I941t)fl
CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS Lo 1 _ OOs
FEDERAL AGENCIES
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
() DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
`(>4DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV
b4. EPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION'
( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
SEND CHKLISTW/ DETERMINATIONS
SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
UTILITIES
CITY AGENCIES
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
MEDIA
Lk> Woo t1Rme5 on ArA�1/4 eta us
() U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
() HEALTH DEPT
( ) PORT OF SEATTLE
( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
() K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES
( ) FOSTER LIBRARY
( ) K C PUBUC LIBRARY
()HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
i-OVILOLYMPIC PIPELINE
) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( ) WATER DISTRICT #20
() WATER DISTRICT #125
- (/CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
() BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT
74 RENTON PLANNING DEPT
( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
() CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - OCLU
( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE'
• NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
() DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
() P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
() HIGHLINE TIMES
Pete Maas
Chariman
RNTAC
18249 S.E. 147th Place
Renton, WA 98059 -8043
Carl Phelps.
Public Storage Inc.
701 Western Avenue #200
Glendale, California 91201
Ms. Mary Murphy
Mary H. Murphy & Asociates
7350 Alonzo Avenue N.W.
Seattle, WA 98117
Mel Roberts
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board
9421 S. 241st
Kent, WA 98031
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR NOTICE
The following
Development
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
PROPOSAL:
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
DATED JANUARY 22, 2001
application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community
for review and decision.
City of Tukwila, Public Works Department
Wetland A is located in Tukwila on the north side of S. 180th within a
swale running north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights of way.
Wetland C is located in Tukwila on the south side of S. 180th within a
depression that runs north -south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -
of -way. Herrera Wetland A is located in Renton in the western side of
the parcel located east of the BNSF and north of S. 180th.
FILE NUMBER: L01 -005 Special Permission (Wetland Fill & Mitigation)
The development of three temporary detours for the BNSF and UPRR
tracks will necessitate the filling of 1.11 acres of wetland ( "Wetlands A
and C ") and 0.9 acres of buffer. Impacts to Wetlands B, D, Herrera
Wetland A and Herrera Wetland B and their associated buffers will be
entirely avoided. Mitigation measures will rely on wetland creation
along with buffer enhancement as compensation for impacts to
Wetlands A and C. A minimum of 1.67 acres of wetland replacement is
required (at a ratio of 1.5 to 1). Mitigation is expected to occur in
"Herrera Wetland A" and its associated buffer and has received
preliminary approval from the City of Renton (see attached plan for
location of all wetlands referenced above).
OTHER REQUIRED SEPA Determination (Tukwila)
PERMITS: Grading Permits (Tukwila, Renton & Kent)
HPA Permit & Water Quality Cert. (Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)
Section 404 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers) •
Shoreline (Renton, Department of Ecology) •
Critical Area Review (Renton)
The file can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.,
#100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to
the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on February 5, 2001. If you have
questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206)
431 -3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be
notified of any decision on this project.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665
a
n
D
O
3
co
▪ :3
( O
CD' pi)
m
Q
0 Do
Q —o
CD 0
CD m.
(1).
1) o
5;
• °
o
- n
cn
CD
CD
W.
-11
1
.� -, - a••: • �.; i;; !'% , •t� �/�y��.y �. . c- ,• , Lhp.p� . ', 1 D 5 p�� �'I t'
Lti virlf".440,r7 # AZ" //Jr
t.
NOTICE: IF THE T IIS THAN
THIS NOTICE I DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOC MENT.
..J
J
Job No. A00084
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
CITY nFTUD
JUN 01 2001
PERMIT CENTER
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
Prepared by
BERGER /ARAM
E N G I N E E R S I N C.
May 2001
•
;
1
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
WETLANDS STUDY AND
MITIGATION PLAN
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
May 2001
Submitted by
BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc.
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300
Federal Way, Washington 98003 -2600
Job No. A00084
1•
•
:4
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
WETLANDS STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction 1
Site Description 1
Project Development 4
Project Purpose and Need 4
Project Description 4
Methodology 5
Wetland Definition 5
Wetland Delineation Requirements 5
Review of Existing Information 7
Wetland Investigation and Determination 15
Wetland A 15
Wetland B 17
Wetland C 18
Wetland D 19
Herrera Wetland A 19
Herrera Wetland B 20
Wetland Impacts 21
Wetland Functions and Values 23
Flood/Stormwater Control 23
Base Flow /Groundwater Support Functions 23
Erosion/Shoreline Protection Functions 23
Water Quality Improvement Functions 24
Natural Biological Support Functions 24
Overall Habitat Functions 24
Specific Habitat Functions 25
Cultural/Socioeconomic Functions 25
Regulatory Framework 26
Wetland Regulation and Classification 26
City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations 26
Tukwila Mitigation Requirements 27
Mitigation Goals and Objectives 28
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
ii
BERGERJABAM, A00084
May 2001
?..+. �.✓ c�:( �K }4 14.'+Sz 4 :c ... _ 3.. _
Wetland Mitigation Plan 29
Wetland Creation Criteria 29
Wetland Creation 31
Performance Standards 32
Interlocal Agreement 32
Performance Standards 33
Monitoring 34
Monitoring Method 34
Vegetation Monitoring 35
Water Level Monitoring 35
Wildlife Observation 36
Basic Program Guidelines 36
Maintenance Requirements 36
Contingency Plan 36
Biological Assessment 30
Limitations 31
References 32
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Project Study Area
3 National Wetland Inventory Map
4 City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Map
5 City of Renton Wetland Inventory
6 City of Kent Wetland Inventory
7 Commuter Rail Project Wetlands (Herrera)
8 King County Soil Survey
9 Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor
10 Wetland Impacts
11 Wetland Mitigation Site
LIST OF TABLES
1 Wetland Indicator Status
2 City of Tukwila Wetlands Rating System
3 Impacted vs. Created Wetland Types
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, A00084
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works iii May 2001
. 1
Vj
APPENDICES
A List of Plant Species Found in the Project Area
B Wetland Data Forms
C Ecosystems Technical Memorandum - Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail
Project
D Wetland and Buffer Functional Assessment Forms
E Planting Plan and Details
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
iv
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
"'"
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a wetland delineation and impacts analysis, and a mitigation
plan prepared by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. (BERGER /ABAM) for the South 180th Street
Grade Separation project. The project is located at the intersection of the northwest corner of the
city of Kent, the southwest corner of the city of Renton, and the eastern boundary of the city of
Tukwila, Washington, in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) tracks (in Township 23N, Range 4E, north half of Section 36). A vicinity map is
provided as Figure 1. Along South 180th Street, the study area extends 200 feet north and south of
the roadway from 72nd Avenue South on the west side to 80th Avenue South on the east side. Along
the BNSF and UP railroad tracks, the study area extends 1,000 feet north and south of the tracks
and within 100 feet of the railroad right -of -way. A map of the study area is provided as Figure 2.
In compliance with federal regulations and local wetland regulations for Kent, Renton, and Tukwila,
BERGER/ABAM completed this study in order to determine the presence, extent, and characteristics
of wetlands in the study area. In addition, BERGER/ABAM has completed an impacts analysis and
provided a mitigation plan, in conjunction with J.A. Brennan Associates, in order to mitigate for
unavoidable filling and disturbance of wetlands, wetland buffers, and riparian buffer areas within
the study area.
A wildlife study and stream study have also been prepared for the South 180th Street Grade
Separation project under separate cover, entitled South 180th Street Grade Separation Project
Wildlife Study and South 180th Street Grade Separation Project Stream Study (BERGER /ABAM
Engineers Inc., 1998).
SITE DESCRIPTION
Land uses within the project study area include a mix of commercial, office park, and light industrial
uses. Other land uses on the north side of South 180th Street include: an undeveloped property
belonging to the City of Renton and located immediately east of the BNSF right -of -way, and the
Oakesdale Business Campus site east of the undeveloped property and extending to 80th Avenue
South. The Creekside Self - Storage building is located immediately east of the BNSF railroad tracks.
The Interurban Trail, Puget Sound Energy power lines, fiber optic cable, and a gas line cross the
project study area in a north -south direction.
Springbrook Creek flows from south to north in the eastern portion of the project study area. Mill
Creek flows northeast under a bridge over the BNSF railroad tracks to a confluence with
Springbrook Creek in the southeastern portion of the site (see Figure 2). The project study area is
generally flat, with elevated grades for the roadway and the railroad tracks.
Vegetation within the project study area includes the following.
• Scrub -shrub wetland areas dominated by willows and open water between the BNSF and UPRR
tracks and between the UPRR tracks and the Interurban Trail, on the northern side of the
roadway
• Blackberry thickets along the Interurban Trail along both sides of the roadway and in the
southern half of the undeveloped site on the northern side of the roadway, adjacent to the BNSF
railroad tracks
• Weed and reed - canary grass- dominated areas on the south side of the roadway between the
BNSF and UP railroad tracks
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
1
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
F
Sea-Tac
International
Airport
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998
Vicinity Map
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 1
Li
• ;
Project Area
MEM In
#
•
• •
O h
•
I I P I
subs43 /
L '
lo w 31■
, 4
Allill
Not to Scale
40
North
Source:
U.S.G.S. Renton, Washington Quadrangle, 1994
Project Study Area
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 2
-.••,* • .•. •
• , .711"I'a 7 r 444 " ; 11 : 7 1 7: r . , k.. ....1113rnicry,',1'*511P
c
• A small forested area dominated by bigleaf maple within the northwestern portion of the
Oakesdale Business Campus site, and a small forested area with bigleaf maple and locust south
of the public storage site
• A willow- dominated corridor adjacent to Springbrook Creek on both sides of the roadway
A list of the plant species found within the project study area is shown in Appendix A.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Project Purpose and Need
The City of Tukwila is initiating a grade separation on South 180th Street between vehicular traffic
and railroad tracks owned by BNSF and UPRR (see Figures 1 and 2). The approximate area of
construction is 20 acres. The corridor is classified as a principal arterial facilitating east -west
vehicular traffic in the Tukwila, Renton, and Kent areas of the Green River Valley. The existing
four -lane roadway serves not only local connections between State Route (SR) 181 (West Valley
Highway) and East Valley Highway, it is also part of a central corridor feeding SR 167. Currently,
South 180th Street is the only major crossing of the railroads for 3.5 miles between Interstate 405 (I-
405) and South 212th Street. As a result, the existing roadway experiences high traffic volumes.
The existing north -south rail corridor currently contains three sets of tracks, two BNSF and one
UPRR. These lines are heavily used for both freight and passenger service, with upwards of 60
trains per day. The intersection of these two heavily used corridors results in not only extensive
traffic delays, but also in numerous accidents. From 1996 through 1998, 24 accidents were reported
on South 180th Street. One of the accidents in 1998 resulted in two fatalities when a train hit a car.
In addition, the Interurban Trail crosses South 180th Street just west of the UPRR tracks. The trail
is widely used as a walking and bicycle path.
Project Description
The project is described in the Design Report, Volumes 1 and 2 (BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc.,
2000) and will consist of the following.
• Vehicular traffic will divert under the existing railroad tracks. The tracks will be tressled on the
south side of South 180th Street within the City of Kent and bridge piers will be installed where
necessary to support the railroad
• The tracks will be shooflied (detoured) temporarily to allow for construction of the underpass.
The shooflies will impact a total of 1.11 acres of wetlands within the cities of Tukwila and Kent.
Mitigation for these impacts is proposed on land within and owned by the City of Renton
immediately east of the BNSF tracks and north of South 180th Street. Following discussions
with the City of Renton, it was determined that the impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a
1.5:1 ratio in accordance with mitigation standards of the cities of Tukwila and Kent.
• The existing roadway will be widened slightly to allow for safe travel for bicyclists.
• The project will add approximately 0.5 acre of new impervious surface to the site and will be
treated at 140 percent of new impervious surface. Stormwater runoff will be collected by catch
basins at the gutter on both sides of the roadway. A 12 -inch mainline will convey the flow
through an underground pump station to a detention pond /wet pond located on the same parcel
of land on which wetland mitigation is proposed. The detention pond will consist of two cells
separated by a berm. Treated water will be discharged to the existing stormwater system.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
4
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
f
c ^�
r
Approximate quantities of cut and fill are 75,000 cubic yards and 22,000 cubic yards, respectively.
In studying alternatives to meet the project's goals, four main issues were evaluated. They included
the number of lanes for the new roadway, method of separation (vertical alignment pass under or
over the existing tracks), maintaining traffic during construction, and meeting overall project budget.
METHODOLOGY
Wetland Definition
Wetlands are formally defined as "... those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Federal Register; 1980,
1982).
Wetland Delineation Requirements
The wetland delineation was conducted using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) (Corps manual) as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. In February 1997, the Washington State
legislature adopted the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
manual) and require its use by local jurisdictions. This new manual is consistent with, although not
identical to, the Corps manual.
According to both manuals, an area must exhibit indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and wetland hydrology to be considered a wetland. These criteria are mandatory and must all be
met for an area to be identified as wetland, except under circumstances when a wetland is considered
a disturbed area or problem wetland. These criteria are discussed below.
Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that
is periodically deficient in oxygen. For each plot, the percent areal coverage is estimated for each
plant species present, and dominant species is determined. Species are assigned a Wetland Indicator
Status (Reed, 1988), which is based on the estimated probability of each plant species' occurrence in
wetlands or nonwetland (see Table 1).
The indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetative unit (tree, shrub, herb) is used to
determine if the plant community of an area is characterized as hydrophytic. If 50 percent or greater
of the dominant plants in a unit have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC, the vegetation is
considered to be hydrophytic in both manuals.
Common plant names are used throughout this text. Scientific nomenclature of all plant species
encountered follows that of Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock & Cronquist, 1973). Where the
taxonomic names of plant species have been changed since 1973, plant names follow the 1988 list of
synonymies (Reed, 1988; revised 1993).
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
5
BERGERJABAM, A00084
May 2001
J
Wetland Indicator
Status
Description
Estimated Probability of
Being Found in a
Wetland
OBL
Obligate: species that almost always occur in
> 99%
wetlands under natural conditions
FACW
Facultative Wet: species that usually occur in
67% > 99%
wetlands but are occasionally found in
nonwetlands
FAC
Facultative: species that are equally likely to
34% > 66%
occur in wetlands or nonwetlands
FACU
Facultative Upland: species that usually
1% > 33%
occur in nonwetlands, but are occasionally
found in wetlands
UPL
Obligate Upland: species that almost always
< 1%
occur in nonwetlands under normal
conditions
NL
Not Listed: species that a:.e not listed and are
presumed to be upland species
NI
No Indicator Status: species that have not yet
been evaluated
x11
•
Table 1. Wetland Indicator Status
(Adapted from Reed, 1988)
Soils
The King County Soil Survey (Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle, 1973) and Hydric Soils list
(Soil Conservation Service, 1985) were consulted for the presence of mapped hydric soils within the
project area. Soils were assessed in the field by examining soil for hydric indicators to a minimum
depth of 18 inches with a soil auger. Soil characteristics examined include hue, value, and chroma,
as identified on a Munsell soil color chart ( Munsell Color, 1992). Hydric soil indicators include
mottles, low soil chroma, gleying, and high organic content. Mottles are spots or blotches of
contrasting color occurring within the soil matrix. Gleyed soils are predominantly neutral gray in
color.
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation, to within
12 inches of the soil surface, for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing
season (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are
observed, it is assumed that wetland hydrology occurs for a significant period of the growing season.
Direct indicators of wetland hydrology include areas of ponding or soil saturation. Indirect
indicators include dry algae on bare soil, water marks on soil or leaves, drift lines, oxidized root
channels associated with living roots and rhizomes, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns.
Duration of inundation and /or soil saturation for the Ecology Manual is based on the number of days
during the growing season that are at 32 °F (0 °C) or above. Wetlands in the Pacific Northwest area
must have 26 days of continuous saturation or inundation within the growing season to meet the
criteria for wetland hydrology. Within the study area, direct and indirect indicators of wetland
hydrology were recorded on data sheets and described.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
6
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
U
Method
The "routine on -site determination method" was used to delineate wetlands within the study area.
This method is used for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively
homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. A combination of field indicators, including
vegetation, soils, and hydrology, were used to determine wetland edges. Sampling results for the
three criteria were analyzed to make a wetland determination for each plot. Based on the results of
plot determinations and visual observation of site characteristics, an overall assessment of the area
was conducted and wetland boundaries were located. For all wetland plots identified, data for a
corresponding upland plot was collected to confirm the edge of the wetland. Wetland Data Forms are
included as Appendix B. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially numbered pink
colored flagging. Wetland flagging was surveyed by CTS Engineers, Inc.
Review of Existing Information
Prior to conducting field evaluations, existing literature, maps, and other materials were reviewed to
identify potential wetlands within the study area. This information included the following.
City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps (City of Tukwila, 1997)
City of Renton Wetland Inventory Maps (City of Renton, 1991)
City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps (1996)
Renton, Washington topographic quadrangle (USGS, 1994)
National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton quadrangle (USFW, 1988)
Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Snyder, et al., 1973)
Hydric Soils of the State of Washington (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1985)
Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information System Database
(1998)
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Non -Game Priority Habitats and Species
Database (1998)
Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Herrera
Environmental Consultants, 1997)
Preliminary Site Plan, Oaksdale Business Campus (CNA Architecture, 1998)
Preliminary Draft Grading and Storm Drainage Plan; Creekside Storage Park (Barghausen
Consulting Engineers, 1997)
Wetland Mapping
National Wetland Inventory
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped portions of three wetlands within the study area
(Figure 3). A Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded wetland (PFOA) lies within the northwest
portion of the study area; a Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Seasonally Flooded, Excavated wetland (PSSCx)
lies between the railroad tracks; and a Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded wetland (PEMC) is
associated with Mill and Springbrook creeks.
City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps
The City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps, dated 1997, depicts one wetland (Wetland 12) within the
study area (see Figure 4) extending from the eastern right -of -way of the UPRR tracks, north and
west of the project area.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
7
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
,
r
;
Not to Scale
LEGEND
PFOA — Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded
PSSCx — Palustrine Scrub Seasonally Flooded, Excavated
PEMC — Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded
4 0
North
Source:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988
National Wetland Inventory Map
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 3
gliMEEVEMIS22=2,
C)U)
F
O 0
o
co
o
• R_
(T)
511 C a l ?
O n
0..
CD CD
cn >
(D
CD
SD 93
• (/)
p.)
• 11011.111 011111-1111116
72ND
•
C.;
. • ;If
t•
—4
-u
CD
0
L •
•-•-t
AVE
• _
"(,:
- • •
—ALL_
1 . 1 0.01.1.1. 1 . 0 . 1•25,
- C
1
EM111•11•1110•111111111MMIIMINIMMEMINIII 2
• 1
• - 1
*i.
. .
•-""' r-, 13 1
Po ;5
...
:."'• I ■
- ....be , •
j N) fl
I
7200
;)
.,... ,1 : :::
C- A 1,1,::
)
,));r ori'V'w V.
V )00 •, 'O 7 s )).)) ; :
) .) •
.) , ' .) ',)!?.1)):','V r 41 - - .
Pr r kl 1) 1) ) 1114. 1 1 ,,
.___.--)..Q _-- . ,
or _
__ :________— ---- :11 0 ) */) 41 4:4• I i t i )11)1 11 4 Wi
1-4 1 1 ) 1 1
" )ti.,1 ? .- 1•
H •'111.)14).4%))1 Vlii)
. , ,),),,)» ),)))) ;,» p. b) )))• =.». » " ° ) )
- .1 , a t ) ■
-..-•-•-•-• -.V? ) 1 , 1) 1 •,)1 ) 11), )11 111)) • a ) IN WI ) ti!),) ) s
■■•••■■•
\ .
1-' \ . •
RUNGTON \ - ,NORT1 NORPAC 1 1 . 1
.,- • • : -. •
.....
r • • • : • • I I
i . • L
/ -.
- Th
1 , ... i..:
• ,,, i • -;---- - _ .. _ — .
, . •
, INDUSTRIALST.■11J .
I
ksj .1 I l l )
I s r,
• •
r • • •
1•■•
.... . _ _
- - - r - ,
NI le
C
0
, •• r k r ) i)" 1)
.111 u s a MI IN In °VI/ 1) )T , ri4
) • ) 1 '1 )
0))))p , ) )0
II
)-
Ft
o
A &tato ira:WANS cam olilli■IIIMAIIIH -11111VVINEO
RLNtON cor L
_ a •
—11 ,• — 71
r • i 177
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
t v
r
f
City of Renton Wetland Inventory Maps
The City of Renton Wetland Inventory Map (Jones & Stokes, 1991) and the City of Renton Wetland
Inventory Update (Jones & Stokes, 1996), depict Wetland 45 within the project area located on the
north side of South 180th Street and on the east side of the BNSF railroad right -of -way (Figure 5).
This wetland corresponds to "Herrera Wetland A" (see below).
City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
The City of Kent Wetland Inventory (City of Kent, 1996), depicts a wetland associated with the
riparian corridors of both Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek within the study area (Figure 6).
Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project Wetlands
Two wetlands were previously delineated within the study area north of South 180th Street and east
of the BNSF railroad right -of -way and described in a report titled Ecosystems Technical
Memorandum: Tacoma - to - Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
1997). These wetlands are referred to in this report as "Herrera Wetland A" and "Herrera Wetland
B" and shown in Figure 7. Both wetlands were delineated on 30 September 1997 using the Corps
manual and are described in Section 4.0 below. A summary of the Herrera report is attached as
Appendix C.
King County Soil Survey
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly known as the Soil Conservation
Service), defines hydric soils as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile (SCS, 1987). The
NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, has compiled lists of
hydric soils of the United States (SCS; 1985, 1987). These lists identify soil series mapped by the
NRCS that meet hydric soil criteria.
The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Soil Survey) maps Woodinville silt loam (map
symbol — Wo) as the dominant soil within the study area (Figure 8). Other soils include Puget silty
clay loam (map symbol — Pu) in the northern portion of the study area, Newberg silt loam (map
symbol — Ng) in the southeastern portion of the study area, Puyallup fine sandy loam (map symbol —
Py) along the Springbrook Creek riparian corridor, and Urban Land (map symbol — Ur) in the
southwestern portion of the study area.
The Woodinville series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium on stream bottoms
with a typical profile as a gray silt loam with layers of peaty muck extending from the surface to a
depth of 38 inches. Permeability is moderately slow, runoff potential is slow, erosion hazard is slight,
and flooding potential is severe unless flood protection is provided. Available water - holding capacity
is high and there is a seasonally high -water table at or near the surface (Snyder, et al., 1973).
Woodinville silt loam is classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987).
The Puget series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile that is
dominantly mottled dark grayish brown and grayish brown silty clay loam from the surface to a
depth of 60 inches. Permeability is slow, runoff potential is slow to ponded, erosion and slippage
hazard is slight, flooding potential is severe, and available water - holding capacity is high (Snyder,
et al, 1973). Puget silt loam is classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987).
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
10
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
:.�'u wc4:ikAi: vw.Ax. .. +awxys -w.
'
Not to Scale
t
I
Project Area
r
North
Source:
City of Renton, 1991
City of Renton Wetland Inventory
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 5
._,., �.., _ is u+';- ��ra •.'s;s:^:.�:.�;�:�..t�o:..x`" t�..:5i
! •
f
,
I
Not to Scale
NW 36-23-04
WETLAND INVENTORY
QTY W I Stoda411.1e wwwwww PIM
SHEET 35INW
\`..\ L
•:•■
\\, A
\
!.` :;\ •
%
'‘‘•
J
•• • / •
a 0 0
• M.o. at MO. .455 .1
• tem elt•Ito.
5.4 (115W mo •■■••• *I
Ill wiwne.„ ••• It, 5V5 MIS
SIt 11.1.1.1.. 5W1 1/11•••••411...1•1•1 1101
• mons. • •••• noon 55ret..
SOU 51•001.45t P.1111 Minn.
.4.... Mof 11 055R1P .••4•41
W PM.. •1.20 11N5 III. Min 1.10.1.
4.141 VV. 1••■••• 41/11.•
1.4111i IN.. V.V. 1.1..411•••••■••••
41. MO. WO V M/I IBM 1141511.5 Met
4 . Imo • 14. elmonvit.
• 4••••••••1 Wm v./114MM 1M1 5••
MO.. meow.. 0.1 •••• II ono* nni•
•■■ on or SW MnO. v. V.. .1 ns. 00.1
•••• v• 4 44••••••• .41.1410.1.81.14
MO1 4.11.1 =OM •• =mem..
HIS Vow. •• •114 Ow •1
PRINTED: 08-20-98
NORTH
SCALE: 1"=300'
LEGEND
-- 1/4 SECTION Wit
10.11171111.1.1.111.
DY•en. Petimt. I IT.
KENT CITY LIMITS
'WETLAND
in•ocompmc PA cowtro no:* AMY. PKII0000157 1.10.. MAL INS
•K•irn LJ� IPC.I mit amasULIT RVIVCO r•C• Malen WI)
Source:
City of Kent, 1996
City of Kent Wetland Inventory
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 6
' 'grk,.'
ftl
i •.
Centerline Westerly
BNSF Mainline
Centerline Easterly
BNSF Mainline
(not surveyed)
Wetlands Area "A"
1/4 Acres (Approx.)
Existing Crossing
Signal and Gates
Not to Scale
t_
A
I
I I
A
I
352
Wetlands Area "B"
5 Acres (Approx.)
3
I
S . .
I
I
t — The wetland extends further to the east.
Adjacent property Owner to provide the
wetland delineation for this extension.
North Pavement Edge of South 180th Street
Project Limit
LEGEND
Wetland Boundary
Railroad Centerline
Wetland Symbol
Existing Pavement Edge
Source:
Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1998
Commuter Rail Project Wetlands
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 7
•
t
I
1
P y
N 0
LEGEND
WO - Woodinville Silt Loam
Pu - Puget Silty Clay Loam
Ng - Newberg Silt Loam
Not to Scale
OMNI IMNII MY* 41••■■I
Source:
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1973
Py - Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam
Ur - Urban Land
11•■■■•■■
• e..!.:,r;.
King County Soil Survey
South 180th Street Grade Separation
4
a*
.. • ,
1. s■• • ar:i. '
• :: 744,0, 3 7 , ..,2 e
.f 4
/74.t.. '... N. ... ,..
-, ..°3.e.... . ..., r:..6.
..-. • . 1 . . 1 .
• ail la, ..:1
.•:-.4 I IN k:!":". •.
•
• ...,
fr
North
Figure 8
7
:
The Puyallup series consists of well- drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as
very dark grayish brown and dark grayish brown fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of
34 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is
slight, flooding potential is slight to severe, and available water - holding capacity is moderately high
(Snyder, et al., 1973). Puyallup fine sandy loam is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987).
The Newberg series consists of well - drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as
very dark grayish brown silt loam and very fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of 20 inches.
Permeability is moderate, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is slight, flooding
potential is slight to severe, and available water - holding capacity is high (Snyder, et al., 1973).
Newberg silt loam is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987).
Urban land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill
material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green
River Valley, the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy
loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate (Snyder, et al., 1973).
Urban land is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS; 1985, 1987).
Natural Heritage Program Data Base
Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program data base was
searched for information on significant natural features within the study area. No records for rare
plants or high - quality ecosystems were found for the study area vicinity.
Priority Habitats and Species Data Base
The Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species data base was examined
for endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species; species of concern; and priority habitats
within the project area. The results of this investigation are discussed in the Wildlife Study
prepared for the project (BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc., 1998).
WETLAND INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION
A field survey to identify and delineate wetlands within the study area was conducted by Senior
Ecologists Gail Brooks and Keith Fabing on 16 and 20 July 1998. Observations of topography,
vegetation, soils, and hydrology identified four wetlands within the study area boundaries. Two
formal data plots were established within relatively uniform areas of vegetation for each wetland
within the study area. Data forms, which correspond to formal data plots, are provided in
Appendix B. The wetlands found within the study area are shown in Figure 9.
Wetland A
Wetland A is located in the city of Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide
swale that runs north/south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way and extends north beyond
the study area boundaries. The total area of Wetland A is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The
wetland is represented by Data Plot #A1 in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within Wetland A include Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW)
and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC) in the tree layer. The shrub layer was dominated
by Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW). Broad - leaved cattail (Typha. latifolia, OBL), water
smartweed (Polygonum amphibium, OBL), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus, FAC), and field horsetail
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
15
BERGER /ABAM, A00084
May 2001
pity of Tukwila
' Wetland 12 ' •
(Approximate..
Location)
•■•
•
471 I./etland
D
r —I.
Projea •limits
•:um Num Ism ∎_NNII — — JWetland
1.
s'g44:!;1 .4..
i
� ::yProjeot Limita��
I
\•
ti
Not to Scale
•
r,
• :,3
1
B
cc
cc
Wetland
A X 1. 3 ,. ;
Wetland C
4
cc
cc
n.
cc
co
z
00 Herrera
Wetland B
I
Herrera
,, Wetland A
cc
m
Ji +f. •4 r
F .�
d" •.:Si
1
1
- w a —
Springbrook
Riparian Corridor
Mill,creek
Riparian " Corridor
N - - NNE
Js
Al7:r• !! • ii
.
•
North
, Project Limits
INEI --
am low on lime /Project L imits !
•
Source:
BERGER /ABAM Engineers, 1998
Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 9
MI'• .� i R,....,.•,p .„,a. .,r", "+,,. a. �..
(Equisetum aruense, FAC) dominated in the herb layer. Based on a dominance of species rated
Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Wetland A were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al., 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were dark grayish brown
(10YR 4/2) silty clay with yellowish brown mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. Grey
gleyed (N50 silty clay soils were observed below 18 inches in depth. These soils were considered
hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface.
Hydrology
The sources of hydrology to Wetland A include direct precipitation, surfacewater runoff from
adjacent areas, a high groundwater table, and potential stormwater from north of the study area. A
culvert is located at the southern end of the wetland, adjacent to the South 180th Street railroad
crossing. The wetland was inundated in areas to depths varying from several inches to 2 feet at the
time of the site investigation. Soils sampled within the data plot were moist to the surface.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (Cowardin, et al., 1979), which is the current federal standard for classifying wetland
habitat, Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub - shrub /palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM) open -
water wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as Type 1 wetland by the City of Tukwila,
because it is estimated to be greater than 5 acres in size and has three wetland classes, one of which
is open water (City of Tukwila, 1997).
Wetland B
Wetland B is located in Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that
runs north/south between the UPRR right -of -way and the Interurban Trail and extends north
beyond the study area. The total area of Wetland B is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The
wetland is represented by Data Plot #B1 in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within Wetland B include red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa,
FACU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU), and red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera,
FACW) in the shrub layer; and reed canary -grass (Phalaris a FACW) (Polygonum
amphibium, OBL) and bigroot (Marah oreganus, NL) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a dominance
of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Wetland B were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were grey gleyed (N4/) muck
from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. These soils were considered hydric due to low chroma and
gleying within 10 inches of the surface.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
17
BERGER/AB AM, A00084
May 2001
a.'VC4 xF
Hydrology
Like in Wetland A, the sources of hydrology to Wetland B include direct precipitation, surfacewater
runoff from the adjacent areas, a high groundwater table, and potential stormwater from north of
the study area. The wetland was inundated throughout much of its area within the study area to
depths varying from several inches to 2 feet at the time of the site investigation. Soils sampled
within the data plot were saturated.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979),
Wetland B is classified as a palustrine scrub - shrub /palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM) open -water
wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Type 2 wetland by the City of Tukwila, because
it is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 acre in size within and beyond the study area, is
subject to disturbance, and has no critical habitat or threatened /endangered species (City of Tukwila,
1997).
Wetland C
Wetland C is located in Kent on the south side of South 180th Street within a depression that runs
north/south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. The wetland is represented by Data Plot
#C1 in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within Wetland C are field horsetail (Equisetum aruense, FAC),
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and bigroot (Marah oreganus, NL) in the
herbaceous layer. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the
wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Wetland C were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were very dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2) silty silt loam with yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) mottles from the surface to a depth
of 18 inches. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty silt loam soils were observed below 12 inches in
depth. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the
surface.
Hydrology
The sources of hydrology to Wetland C include direct precipitation and surfacewater runoff from the
adjacent areas. Soils sampled within the data plot were dry at the time of the field investigation.
However, given the low matrix color with the presence of mottles and the sustained dry summer
weather conditions, wetland hydrology during the growing season was assumed to be sufficient to
meet the wetland hydrology criteria.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979),
Wetland C is classified as a palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland. This wetland would likely be
classified as a Category 3 wetland by the City of Kent, because it is equal to or less than 1 acre in
size and has two or fewer wetland classes (KCC 11.05).
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
18
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
J
Wetland D
Wetland D is located in Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that
runs north/south between the Interurban Trail and the commercial/industrial properties beyond the
western boundary of the study area. Wetland D extends towards the west and north beyond the
study area boundaries. The total area of Wetland D is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The
wetland is represented by Data Plot #D1 in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within the shrub layer of Wetland D include Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus discolor, FACU), with Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW +) and sitka willow in the
northern portion, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), field horsetail (Equisetum
arvense, FAC), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FACU +) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a
dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered
hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Wetland D were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were dark gray (10YR 4/1)
silty muck with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches.
These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface.
Hydrology
The sources of hydrology to Wetland D include direct precipitation, a high groundwater table, and
surfacewater runoff from the adjacent areas. Soils sampled within the data plot were saturated to
the surface at the time of the field investigation.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979),
Wetland D is classified as a palustrine emergent (PEM /PSS) wetland. This wetland would likely be
classified as Type 2 wetland by the City of Tukwila, because it is greater than 1 acre, is subject to
disturbance, and has no critical habitat or threatened /endangered species (City of Tukwila, 1997).
Herrera Wetland A
Herrera Wetland A is located in Renton in the southeast portion of the parcel located east of the
BNSF and north of South 180th Street. The area of this wetland was estimated to be approximately
1/4 acre in size. This wetland is described as an isolated scrub -shrub wetland that is confined to a
swale paralleling the railroad tracks (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1997) (see Appendix C).
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within Herrera Wetland A were reported as Pacific willow (Salix
lasiandra, FACW), red -osier dogwood (Comics stolonifera, FACW), Himalayan blackberry ( Rubus
discolor, FACU), and reed canary -grass ( Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). Based on a dominance of
species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
19
BERGER/ABAIMI, A00084
May 2001
t.• ,
Soils
Soils in Herrera Wetland A were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973).
The soils sampled in the wetland data plot were reported as dark gray (10YR 4/1) silt with dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles from the surface to a depth of 16 inches. These soils were
considered hydric due to a low chroma soils (10YR 4/1 with mottles).
Hydrology
Herrera Wetland A hydrology was assumed through observation of indirect indicators of saturation
within the wetland such as watermarks, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, and water stained
leaves.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979),
the Herrera Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub - shrub /palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM)
wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 2 wetland by the City of Renton,
because it is greater than 2,200 square feet and is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland (City of Renton,
1992).
A large blackberry thicket dominates the southcentral portion of the site between Herrera Wetland A
and Herrera Wetland B. Site topography and observed soil characteristics suggested that fill
material was placed in the location of the Himalayan blackberry thicket, separating Herrera
Wetland A from the larger Herrera Wetland B complex. Herrera Environmental Consultants
speculated that a house with ornamental plants used to occupy this fill area, as evidenced by the
presence of cherry trees, English ivy, red elderberry, and blackberries (Herrera Environmental
Consultants, 1997).
Herrera Wetland B
Herrera Wetland B is located in Renton and is part of a large wetland system that extends north
beyond the study area, where it encompasses shrub /scrub, emergent, and openwater vegetation
classes that are hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek. The area of the wetland was
estimated to be approximately 5 acres within the study area (Herrera Environmental Consultants,
1997) (see Appendix C).
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species reported within Herrera Wetland B include Oregon ash (Fraxinus
latifolia, FACW), Black cottonwood (Populus balsanaifera, FAC), red -osier dogwood (Cornus
stolonifera, FACW), and reed canary -grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), with invading Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) and hardhack (Spiraea douglasii, FACW) also present. Based on
a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered
hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Herrera Wetland B were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder, et al., 1973).
The soils sampled in the wetland data plot were reported as very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt
with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles from the surface to a depth of 16 inches. These soils
were considered hydric due to a low chroma soils with mottles.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
20
BERGERIABAM, A00084
May 2001
ihS�G'.'. e. �SULx. s: tt. aw:.,:v. r,_r.....w....w....v...,...._.- ..,.•.a...a.�t, w • •a:LS. • ..U'+.i `91
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology within Herrera Wetland B was assumed through observation of indirect
indicators of saturation, such as with watermarks, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, and water
stained leaves. Z
Classification and Rating H w
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin, et al., 1979), o
the Herrera Wetland B would be classified as a palustrine scrub - shrub /palustrine emergent 0 0
(PSS /PEM) wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 2 wetland by the City c w
Renton, because it is greater than 2,200 square feet and has minimum evidence of human - related
physical alteration (City of Renton, 1992). N_ tL
wO
a
A total of 1.11 acres of wetland (a portion of Wetland A and all of Wetland C within the study area w
boundaries) will be filled and 0.9 acre of wetland buffer will be filled as a result of the development of Z '—
=
the temporary detours, or shooflies, for the BNSF and UPRR tracks. No impacts to wetlands are
_
expected to occur as a result of the roadway and underpass construction. Impacts are shown on w O
Figure 10. 2 j
U�
Prior to and during construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to protect 0 H
WETLAND IMPACTS
critical areas from development impacts. The following general measures are recommended to avoid
or minimize impacts to wetlands and streams and their associated buffers during project = 0
construction: 0
Z
• A preconstruction meeting on site with the construction contractor, City of Tukwila personnel, W
and a professional biologist to discuss the construction sequencing H H
O
• Installing orange construction or other fencing approved by the City of Tukwila on the outside
edge of the wetland buffer prior to any construction activity on the site to ensure that no activity
occurs within the wetland, stream, or associated buffer
• Confining all machinery, stockpiled soils, fill material, waste materials, and construction activity
to the construction areas designated and approved by the City for construction - related operations
• Hydroseeding of any disturbed areas with an approved native seed mix specified in the planting
plan. The purpose of rapid revegetation is to prevent invasion of exotic species, retain the
integrity of the plant association and wildlife habitats, reduce erosion of denuded soils, and
minimize sedimentation into the study area and downstream wetlands and streams
• Maintaining erosion control measures until the area has been successfully planted
(approximately 1 year) and approved by a qualified professional biologist
• Storing hazardous materials outside of the study area
• Restricting the clearing of vegetation to the minimum necessary to complete the project
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM, A00084
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 21 May 2001
Z
J -�
35mm Drawing
#1
Scale: 1" = 120'
MAC1• :141..11:I,r- 7ay:1•1•1211ssrt1111111111
:i:t.IS.1.y1.1:r, 1.ysy:ur•»a7/As11111•
IN WETLAND = 722 sq ft
Source:
BERGER /ABAM Engineers, Inc. 1999
WETLAND AREA "C"
HERRERA WETLAND A
1
i a a
IN WETLAND = 47,550 sq ft
•
•
WETLAND AREA ' "A"
I
r•, . , �.
i )
�.
�.-...
(-
TOTALS FOR WETLANDS
IN WETLAND = 48,272 ft (1.1 acre)
a
•
A
Ili ili . i1l . ili ' Ili ( 1 lIi Ili �. j:i; ril` 11 III 111 IjI II (l I 1111 I IjI III i11 111 I I j11 'L' ..
i� I ,;, I 1 ` 21•' 1 . 3I' 1. IIfI �. , ... ,r I 1 51 I 1 I 6I •
'WESTCOTT ,t
• Since ,872'" 1'
gll i4 £L ...ZIL • LL:' ..-011. ......I6 IR ....' .L I9 .. , I11111n11 (4. • E.' I ... 1111 II WOI
i111111111111111111i I 111 111111111I11111111111111!11! 111j11111)1111111 1 lllllllll 111111u11111Ii�1i I I�Il111n 1•111 niihni
a a p a a
a • a a a
WETLANDI AREA "0"
•
a a i a a
A . A
HERRERA WETLAND 8
. a a a a a a a a
WETLAND AREA "B"
.. APPROXIMATE SLOPE LIMITS
Wetland Impacts.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
ALN
North
Figure 10
File: L01-0005
35mm Drawing
#2
/ •
e •
ON
SEC. 36, T.23N., R.4 E., W.M.
EXISTING CROSSING SIGNAL
AND GATES
CENTERLINE EASTERLY BNSF MAINLINE (NOT SURVEYED)
-W-ESTCOTT,„ - • .
•;:".•
CENTERLINE WESTERLY BNSF MAINLINE
Alb
11111.11111111 11A1 iliLl 1111111
1 1 1"1111
Inch Ine 2 3
yi •1711. Ell Z11, H. OR 16 18 IL 19 19 Its IC 1Z I. IJO
-:.
gn
ociu f :ALL si
:WETLAND AREA A
.................................
.... . ........ ...........
Alb.
SOIL PIT No. 2
AIL :
•
. .. ................ 7 . 0. ......................................... ....................
allii (
V4 ACRES .(APPROX.) .......... •
0 AIL ,
,
: . .......... ...... • • • i .... ..
..c
•
• zi.U.L
co
,
c
..... .„II,
.: .%.\1Lz SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
..., ....• 1.11/4
171/:
SOIL PIT• No. 1
. 0 • SOIL PIT No. 3 .
..r;
R • ti .
AI&
..
SOIL PIT No. 5 l
ALL
alig.
.. .
1.111L .
• .
..
•
Lu
. - ..
Alit
' ---,.
LT,
1—.
11.1.1.1 all It •
ALL WETLAND AREA 9
.....
i • a
s..1
.-;:..
;... ' .. ....... , ,., i;.; ........ .... .......... .....................
58 . ............. ,011. PIT No. 4 Al
5 ACRES (APPROX.)
..,:', a.
1'
0,
.....4 Z ACCESS ROAD. (NOT SURVEYED) •
Aib
—.
o:
.1.:
&
. ' 8
*O. ................... Ogle ............. O.0000.0•400.111i:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
THE WETLAND EXTENDS FURTHER TO THE EAST. --1
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE THE
WETLAND DELINEATION FOR THIS EXTENSION.
SURVIVE) BY
&MUD IY
01E0511 BY
I. E HEFT
O. C. PUTM*N
J. MCLAS1 MYRA
10/14/ST
10/15/ST
10/16MT
DATE d DATE
REVISION
BY
•
INFRASTRUCTURE
CONSULTING
CORPORATION
ENGINEERS — SURVEYORS
MOO 17111W Per
*Ml WO
WATAC WA MY
rump
Regional Transit Authority
aix•••••
LEGEND
WETLAND BOUNDARY
RAILROAD CENTERLINE
SOIL PIT
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
WETLAND SYMBOL
EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE
0 50 100 --
SCALE IN FEET
, WETLAND SURVEY MAP
PROPOSED COMMUTER RAIL STATION
SOUTH 180TH ST./SW 43RD ST..
64'
File: 01-00
35mm Drawing
#3-13
I PI% lilaAr
• la
.• •
sumo • • .
•
sr %‘•
• :• \ \? L
Vase.
—. X.*
Ps&
I IN 5je T
, Nuts..
CIA
10
1
391 qr,;391
; !!`
ono
North
%Thomas
43
OM ill
t I t tO
itkittill,
-( .11111
• I• •
'go
•
-1k#St •
• • '
• ct. 20
• Wit.
111•00•S
:30
'.."1111111:k •
cf, NA.
..fte*Fr ••• •
.... ..........
17;
33
,•
i0
•
3 --
22
se AN: 1.7.•
• • •
• 22 : • •
t lc
•
•
'• ., •
• 1•4 • .':
-0 427
• •
.aarak.S■
' x
*m ~
^
'
' �
''it
•
P 0
Source:
Harza Northwest Inc. 1994
Springbrook Creek Watershe Boundary
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 3
L
__________ ____ ___ -------------------------- „, _____ --- „ ________ --
-------- - --------------
--------------- --------- 7 ---- ------------------ 7 ---- 777 ------------ 7 ----- 7777- ,
--- 7 ------- 7 - 7 ----- --- --- ---- -- 7 -
W1172AND
MITIOATAV
85635 $
0.92 ACRES}
PARCEL 8 -- /FY Of EN 70 N'
wirmoto MIT/4477W
~GM. es- GITY Aram*/
Vs/
ENERWER/AllAlvT /-
4 0"0 CT
L
•
•
p . '
Acce 66 tow..
01 II 1
. 1111 III
• .4
• !
-Ebe-k-stnuir-r
Th
FOrjfer
O? 'J;
- 1-twv..91is■tr
SrAjewl
\40-n-04+11) Ab V t-ciatck
1 0 14 Zot4e
rtit.BSTS•ISNAT t50 Gy
.5c.r%Ue'4*r t I %
mw.e.c)04 2.6
vritsme, s- %
csret4 is,444
9%
CoNGEPTVAt
werzA"P /41770477o•
Ofilarnsg/ ASPAM
V ,
y/aitov
' ,
IN WEILAND = 722 sq ft
IN BUFFER 8912 sq ft
WETLAND AREA "C'
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
—ENGINEERING—STREETS—WATERWER—PARKS—BUILDING
•
Iva Seri on lb*? bst W MI • I 4aanl by M PM Maw RInINIAI9002tEnvismonleltrtArb-hteenceing S.I•
I APPROX WEILAND AREA
j
olosioa
UP
CV/
by ps
cw
. . .
. , . .
.
.... . A i A
•.A•......... A
• •••...•.......•...• . I • : ...........•■••••-•7••••••—•....•-.•—•...•—•—•—•-..•—•....•-•* . tome•a”,.. •nosa.•■•■•••••■•••■•••■•■•■••
•
r.....■••■•■••jr."....•"...V.7.•...•nrm.•■...:1.7.r•ro•::•••■•■•••...a•mo.....•■••■•■•■■••■••17...... .: .: .7
*
.........7............................7•7.••■•■•■•• ow•al.• ....
a a
, . .
• • •.."• • ".• . . . • . • ••■•■■••••■•••••■■■••••■••■■•■•■■■•■• ■ • ■•
:
•%,„
1 V.Rrt.• "ifittb*Sing. ' Lhaf. Kt: ioliotragratnga4.13sanIE
-.+1111111111•111:,;4• PR ;••••.1% 0 . 0 2 % 6 1 , 41MEN
,
%AR
;00, •,1,111111.111!"..3tx, "ItsmwittlEt4A1.,391Rnrsi,47314152,1417X7MIMITIr4FiUrSZ,P'MVII317X x +.
...
21111MMI *.m.,„Mxtr,,,,,m,,,rwfzwz,zes.rAmIrArver, >
. • ::•• •
. • • •
razfMEWSiaemgarawamws.tmsam,.....-exzzm-,;wmmft .. .................................................
VEILAND.AREA'"e • . . . •
.. ••
•
EBIGERADMI
INSININIS I No.
UM CM MINX Kum
MIX 11W6 10111.008 •0
(2o0431-23o0 r/A(20)
•
•
•
•
(
\ .
‘ a a a A a
. % .
.
IN WETLAND S. 47,550 sq ft . - % , . a a
IN BUFFER .. 30,773 sq . ft
•
a a
TOTALS FOR WETLANDS
• IIII IN WETLAND = 48,272 sq ft (1.1 acre)
red IN BUFFER = 37,685 sq ft (0.9 acre)
CONSULTANTS
,
HR
HoR Engineering,
a
• '
. nr4.'...6.•••••••••
• • --***1
a
APPROX 11E1LAND AREA
• • a a '
a a
.. [11 . 11iIilliiii11 1 1111)1111yALLi . , 2 i1.111•111111111■1 3 1 , 11 , 1111 , 111J1 , 1 ‘ 1 , 11 4 1A11 1 1 11111 1 1 5 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1
I 61
Inch 1.16 ;
-W-ESTCOTT® r .
Since an.
W. VII. tli. ZII. H. OR 16 19 IL 19 19 . ' 1£ IZ INDI
a a
a••
WETLAND IMPACTS
SOUTH 180th STREET
GRADE SEPARATION
•
ti1!.;4ND AREA "D"
•
•
a
• r
. a
a
11E/LAND AREA "13"
1,1 SLOPE MI
a
a . a a i
• • !
a a . .!
' !
!
a a a ..!
!
- !
a a a a • i
!
.,. • I
""•••■.,.
•••
• •••. .
. ... . .4.M.n
.....
roNsiono
a
filo no
N ods
dots
t.
11
•
m
1:u.. :• ............ • :...
..... . ...... ....
inli �: a.:i"^ D BNSF SHOOFLY 1 AND UPRR SH �'r�.,�[
llll
WETLAND AREA "C"
... ..t 1 e» :rciir »»»11.11::•,••: : » :• :•
r. : :..rx : : »" :: i'.il ii;ien : :.
IN WETLAND. = 47.550 .sq ft
IN BUFFER = 92,680 sq ft
WETLAND AREA "A"
TOTALS- FOR • WETLANDS
IN WETLAND : 48;272 'sq ft (1.1 . acre):
IN BUFFER .= .99,592 sq ft (2 :3 :acre)
- »1:11 »•••:r.
. 2. 1 Xi�r:2f+• -, 1 s' a
NiETLANDi AREA •D•
a a a
APPROX WETLAND AREA
(NOT SURVEYED)
a: <i ::s. : :i :o •
iiiii!l'_yiii116tiiiE4111!'=ii-
..._....... i:::::: �. ........ :iS :i :i : : :c_ 1111 i 3 :: :.::::::..,•.:......y
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, Inc. 1999
Wetland Impacts
South 180th Street Grade Separation '
Figure 1 0
I II I II I1I :
.Inch 1/16 1
-W STCOTT
Since 1878'0
IIII III II) 111 III 111 I1I III{1 1 III 111 III
I 1 I I 51 I
. I I 5 I, "'s I ' I 6I
9 ti £I6 Z H. 0�4 I6 I9 IL I9 IS . I4 I£ Z L WDI
II III IIII I II Ui ; ii ni;IIUI inil�nl n�IIIUI 1nilnll nI (II I nnlnn IIIIIIIII I I II l I I I III lIIIIIIII I nnlnll I InIIInI
•
,
0 .2
'
A /raw
. 1908
_
g
PUBLIC 'WORKS DEPT-
—ENGINEERING— STREETS—WATER —SEWER — PARK S—BUILDING
.
. ,
'� 1,1v 1
by
dote
CONSULTANTS
WETLAND PLANTING PLAN
sheet 57 of 144
designed
nr/Dc
4/02/01
1.11. BRIMAIIII
11S1001111/111. MO
kidettapoombleeeto
drawn
DC
4/02/01
.00"
, iffrpf i R„,:wm
14.00„
cheeked
J8
4/02/01
• •
SOUTH 180th STREET ET GRADE SEPARATION
..
job no M004
proj eng
CCW
4/02/01
scale 1"
prof dir
GIP
4/02/01
no
dole
revisions
dole 2/20/01
lield no
1
(
1
; 11 Nj _
L .
----------
• .
SEED MIX #1
UPLAND •
BUFFER
1 • •••• ..... .
------
•••-",
•,••,,•
-• •-•--• • •
•
• •• •
...
......
8NSF RAILROAD
WETLAND •
t
•••.. ..•.,.. •-,--,--
•••• •• ••••,••••,••.. ••-
.• ■••
• --•-• •• • ••+•.• • •1,■..• •-,•.• • •.•.• •-••--• •-_-•••1 •- -•-•-..■ --• •-•..-. •--•
•••• •••■•'.1.6.
•••••-.• •.•-•.• ••
• ..,.••••_ ••,•• --_,•-•+-_-_■---
r: %a
040044
. 044P4 04; '71 4Oft•
\ ,rirVeg
-- . 06 a 8 4 +9;60J 1 9,A,: 134• C -1; r4 4 0.7: 11 e )
--0 'Av'v'r r‘t71,pit`iy r=kir...
•.. ,.. t ,I. r ....,,,LAAW1 • •
. e ttlic t :i . .? .L? c3,-
_ , 1 _
..... ,• •-•,- •
—. 84Mf2Li
ACCESS ROAD
•
1
1. '
1 ' 3 . !
I I I III 1
Inch 1/10 . ‘ 3 •
WESTCOTF
Since 1877".
A ..
.. ,E,.....,:f.,.sz.,:. _ ... ,. E :.
.X,...15ITT,,GIFORE;;ELD(:' .•
(18) MIX 34;15 ..,,
,, (4. ' .,•';',
■ %4 i r::
: ,
,;:t... w . ETLAN_D _ .
..... . . W.ETthlti) j3QIJND „„ • ARY4,.. ,.. .,
. 24)LI.
'• Er MEADOW.-
(26)L1
• HABITAT'
:SNAG Typ. • •.
(38) MIX 1
II t
• . .1;
111 17 I. Cl. Z1. H. 01. 6, B L 9 9 . f . 1
111111i11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111411111)1111111111111
(60) MIX 1 1
••:•• :
30) MIX,
.)
(40) NIX
.• \
)
(20X MIX 1
(20) MIX) ) .& ,.. 4,6 4,.6..
'
"
liVie Term,
Ocio• Pjw -14 • \fattCi 'h .I4
0
"0■24:
• • : r?)'‹ (17)u
/
,
(46) MIX 3 r.•.)
(92) MIX 2 EXISTING
WET MEADOW
•
1P—r—` HUMMOC
44 • • /
vfx,
(
• • . (
.
, = •
• :14
1
1..
NOTE:
SEE SHEET 58 FOR
• • PLANT LIST.
• ...
0
61111611.1.1 40
SCALE 1"-20'-0"
\ r 4 f f PU$LIC WORKS DEPT.
4 ' 2
0 _ _I - ENGINEERING — STREETS — WATER — SEWER — PARKS— BUILD
" / z
\ _ O ~ •
, \ a
1906
• .
�,. s
Kev
by
date
CONSULTANTS
1
LANDSCAPE SECTIONS ?
1
sheet 63 of 144
designed
Woe
4/02/01/
�.A. ARIAAAA
A!l041AT!!. duo
, �.��:.�,��,
T�MA4! r� ^�'�
•
drown'
4/02/01
sERCtz/
.
checked
JS
4/02/01.
SOUTH 180th STREET GRADE SEPARATION
i
job no A00094
prof
4/02/01
d
prof dir
CtP
GLP
4/02/01
° ° °'e
no
date
revisions
fdd bk n
date 2/20/01
1.
it; PROJECT LIMITS
�
a E3 1
RA IL LINE
PROPOSED --
N3d PAYNG
sWaB FLAWING . CONFER PLANING
t , r� r/ rrOr\ \rOr\ \r\ \r\ \r0 /Orr\ \r \ \ /O /\ \ /\ \G� \ > \`'lr . !rOG40Grrp04 /rrr4Gr /GOp ��r//rrrr� r \� \� \ � r' \� r \ O' rj rj rr /j rj rr�l ri rr /r /r /r /r/ /r.j /r TNG 9LLPE \ \r \ \r\ \ \ \ / \ \ / r \ \ � \ r \ / /r0 \�� � / j�rj �,' = � � ,
t
ri \ \•�� \ ` � \ `' /;fi \r /; ` Dos \ i/\i /iii \y\i� ?Ot � :I,'
.
\ j; r \ \ O 0 0 4 • O G \ \ \ 4 O r it O i
i / \ ✓� /r \ \ I O , /�
FOREST SWAMP
ZONE
1•it17RO°.� IRERE
NECESSARY
PECCOCUS
wore PLANING FOR
SPRNGER0010
MNGFEACCW
51.46/36 to 19E H4NTANED
LP1tl SMALL CaftANBR
PLNNTNG ON S1EEP SLOPE
LAE
6TAKNG
SPIR NGI3POOK TYPICAL PLANTING SECTION
SCALE 1%5'
SCRUB /SHRUB 1••11MMOCK TO ENABLE
ZONE CONIFER PLANTING
-�- . �. - -- luIis
s•eS r.•i ✓�:� ✓O� \;� :..: ,:'�.•.: „ . >:• >` ✓r`r i �:� iYV.i• i• :,i.i ..•..:.�;rii i'yi`�• r7T ';, �' :�. ; r. r.�.:•�: %::•,:::::r
SPRNGBROCK CREEK
SOUTH - Isom! WETLAND MITIGATION TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE 1 11. =20 '
1 .1 1j.1111111(1111111111
Inch utG 1 1
OPEN, WATER
MT MEADOW SCRUB/ SHRUB WM-I EMERGENT HUMMOCK TO ENABLE FOREST SWAMP
PLANTINGS
ZONE ZONE SHORELINE PLANTING
•■•, ..i (•
• \i /i;r %•: / \'��� /':!(i��� \i :J Y ,\'. .�`•
rr •
� r Via'
I 1. 1: 1 1I I .11 111111111111111 1 11111I1 I I(!III 6I
2 31— % j;. '
CONFER PLANTING
WESTCOTf
Since187g
916 14 £Il ZI. 14 III I 6 I 8 I 9 1 9 I v t £ I I 1,101 11 1111 1111 u11 1111111u in1 I IIII1111 1111 1111 11111 111111111 1111 111111111 111111111
ZONE
WET MEADOW
ZONE
PROJECT LIMITS
EXISTING WETLAND
HABITAT
.\ � ih:\. � i<: ��\ o\ �\\\ r �\= C���\:<\ i\:>\ �?:: . \::`.v \r \;.'. \! \'.�. •
U
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL
PROVIDE:
14 HABITAT LOGS
9 LOGS FOR HUMMOCKS
1 1 HABITAT SNAGS
5 AMPHIBIAN STICK
BUNDLES
z
BNSF RAILROAD
: ....... . LOPE AWAY FROM POND TO SLOW
•
SUFAtE • DRAINAGE: ......
HABITAT •• • a
•
1.11
•4 •
Fr v ., BERM
;.; 4: A NI •
• . t
:I! •
ACCESS ROAD
--
•
•
ce
1—
X. g O' . ... : . 2::,
, • .r, cm
cn !../. u) , • . r f ,
•:.. .,.; • e) .4-
‘:'' g ••••• v .1 't.. •., i'i. K. , ,, r. • Y
...N..**,.: 1 7. i. ' i: .'I
' Inch 11
'WEST cPTT
nce 187? ,
• , ■ • ...•••.,•••
•
.....--
. . ..... •
A LINE STA 18 0
EXISTING •
WET MEADOW •
• I
17.
.......... .
I III III i 1,) Ili II II I I III III I I
.1 11 1 111 1 11 T 1 1 I i I I 1. I I II 1111 II III I III
1 I .I 6 1
3 • • 4 5
t711. EI Z11. 1.11. 011. 16 19 IL 19 19 . 1t7 IC 1Z tA/01
IIIIIIIIIH11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111IIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
. 6
N •,...
• I ; ...
• • • A • • • •••% • a • ■ . • .
• I •
• / . N
•
• 1 / • / •.• , • /
• /
k I
I. . /
I ' • Nt ••••.
' 1 4 I
le■ • • . • ..2. .N...
I . • •:: .....
• .... ... •/•
./ II
i
.
/ • .
, • i.
/ ;.•
/ l.1
/
• 222
• ;
e • ;.
• !
r
\ 1
.1,
•
g:
1.4
' •
• WE.1 • ) O jj AE 7:7
k ._
....
• N.
.•
•
• ...... •
•
In
A LINE STA 8
1.
'I A LINE STA 1t5
9.
I! • .
A LINE STA 20+00
•
••3
A LINE STA 20+50
•
1-•
4:
•
•
A LINE STA 21+00
• r '." ....
3
A LINE STA 19+00
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT_
—ENGINEERING— STREETS— WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING-
0.114101
CISCO
U117C.111 16941[1
-- 11,06.1
031117•47.1K1
designed
drawn
checked
pro) eng
prof dir
by
re/0c
oc
J8
CCP!
GU'
fidd bk no
date
4/02/01
4/02/01
4/02/01
4/02/01
4/02/01
CONSULTANTS
0 001114
BERGER/ARAM
IMOO
J.R. BRI11111111
PI&O
lead/tope afeleirMs
/piemitees
GRADING PLAN SHEET 3 :
SOUTH 180th STREET GRADE SEPARATION
no date
revisions
sheet 54 of 144
job no A00084
•••••••■■••
scale 1 = 20'
date 2/20/01
— 1 — i
. 0 20 40
•
SALE 1 "=20
•••••■••■
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
— ENGINEERING — STREETS—WATER—SEWER—PARKS—BUILDING-
1410151111
Has@1e
Ula4'llt xwcci
ri• a MINN*
CURRAN' NQ 4S3
designed
drawn
checked
prof eng
proj dir
Add bit na
• by dote
re/nc
DC
JB
CCW
CLP
4/02/01
4/02/01
4/02/01
4/02/01
4/02/01
CONSULTANTS
1.A. IREAnAn
AUIOOIATIS. PUO
Waimea
HERBACEOUS & WETLAND PLANT MIX
4
SYMBOL QTY. BOTANICAL NAME
133 JUNCUS BALTICUS
133 JUNCUS ENSIFOLIUS
133 ELEOCHARIS PALUSTRIS
COMMON NAME
Fl ANTJNT`..,YIY_LigHal I OW FRESH MARSH PLANTS1
BALTIC RUSH
DAGGER LEAF RUSH
SPIKE RUSH
PLANTING NIX 2 (CHAT I nw FRFSH MARSH PI ANTS)
191 CAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE
191 SCIRPUS MICROCARPUS SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH
PLANTING MIX 3 (DEEP MARSH PLANTS
79 SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA ARROWHEAD, WAPATO
79 SCIRPUS ACUTUS • HARDSTEM BULRUSH
HFRBACEOUS
O 17 LYSICHITUM AMERICANUM SKUNK CABBAGE
HERBACEOUS PLANTING NOTES:
FOR EACH PLANTING AREA NOTED ON THE PLANTING PLAN,
PLANTING MIX IS TO BE SPLIT EVENLY BETWEEN SPECIFIED
SPECIES.
PLANT INDIVIDUAL SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 10 -20 PLANTS
WITHIN EACH PLANTING AREA
WET MEADOW HYDROSEED MIX — SEE SPECS.
ABBREVIATIONS:
O.C. — ON CENTER
SIZE /CON TAINER
PLANTING SPACING
DEPTH
4" POT 0 " -10" 18" O.C.
4" POT 0 " -10" 18" O.C.
6 -12" HEIGHT /BAREROOT 0 " -6" 18" O.C.
6 -12" HEIGHT / BAREROOT 0 " -6" 18" O.C.
4" POT 0" -6" 18" O.C.
6 -12" HEIGHT /BAREROOT 1 " -18" 18" O.C.
4" POT 1 " -18' 18" O.C.
4" POT
0 " -6" AS SHOWN
AC
AR
CD� CD
FL
• PT
PF
flI &b.
PLANT UST
DONIFFROUS TRFES
SYMBOL QTY.
8
20
61
2D
14
97
DECIDUOUS TRFES
SYMBOL QTY. BOTANICAL NAME
IARGF SHRUBS
SYMBOL QTY.
ii
•
5MAU_ SHRUBS
SYMBOL QTY.
RD
LI
MA
RC
RN
RP
5S
SA
VC
BOTANICAL NAME
ARIES CRANDIS
PICEA SITCHENSIS
PICEA SITCHENSIS
PSEUDOTSUGA •MENZIESII
THUJA PLICATA
THUJA PLICATA
50 ACER CIRCINATUM
132 ALNUS RUBRA
45 CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII
100 FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA
97 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA
80 PYRUS FUSCA
BOTANICAL NAME
40 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA
58 CORNUS SERICEA
15 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR
7 OSMARONIA CERASIFORMIS
28 PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS
14 RIBES SANGUINEUM
67 SALIX HOOKERIANA
41 SALIX LUCIDA SSP. LASIANORA
27 SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA
63 VIBURNUM EDULE
BOTANICAL NAME
232 CORNUS SERICEA
67 LONICERA INVOLUCRATA
75 MAHONIA AOUILIFOLIUM
100 ROSA GYMNOCARPA
105 ROSA NUTKANA
.35 ROSA PISOCARPA
212 SALIX SCOULERIANA
107 SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS
20 VACCINEUM CAESPITOSUM
NOTE:
PLANT UST IDENTIFIES PLANTS ON SHEET C57
ONLY.
COMMON NAME
GRAND FIR
SITKA SPRUCE
SITKA SPRUCE
DOUGLAS FIR
WESTERN RED CEDAR
WESTERN RED CEDAR
COMMON; NAME
VINE MAPLE
RED ALDER
DOUGLAS HAWTHORN
OREGON ASH
BLACK COTTONWOOD
WESTERN CRABAPPLE
COMMON NAME
•
SERVICEBERRY
RED TWIG DOGWOOD
OCEANSPRAY
INDIAN PLUM
PACIFIC NINEBARK
RED FLOWERING CURRANT
HOOKER'S WILLOW
PACIFIC WILLOW
RED ELDERBERRY
HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY
COMMON NAME
RED —TWIG DOGWOOD
BLACK TWINBERRY
TALL OREGON GRAPE
BALDHIP ROSE
NOOTKA ROSE
CLUSTERED ROSE
SCOULER'S WILLOW
SNOWBERRY
DWARF BLUEBERRY
.�IIIIIIIIII� IIIIIII. %1I11;2flll�lll.lII
Inch 1,1h r I .
'°I STCOTT '
Since 187F'" .
Y E V . Elt. ZI' H O�L I I9 IL I9 I5 It' IE I3 Il 11DI
II ii Ii it 1u11nn {lulnn IIIIIh11 I IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 6 n)III) IIIIIIIII 111111111 IIIIIIIII 1)1)1111! ! 111111! !I!! III) IllttIi I IIIIIIIII
I {{I III II III II
31' III 111 111 I I 1I{ ICI 111 111 I I .. ,i•. , I I 51 I I 6I
SIZE
4
2' -3'
4' -5'
SIZE
2' -3'
2' - 3'
2' -3'
2' -3'
2' -3'
SIZE
SIZE
GAL.
CAL.
GAL
CAL.
GAL.
GAL.
GAL.
GAL.
GAL.
GAL.
LIVE STAKE
1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL.
1 GAL.
1 GAL.
LIVE STAKE
1 GAL.
1 GAL.
WETLAND PLANT LIST .
CONDITION SPACING
B &B /CONT. AS SHOWN
B &B /CONT. AS SHOWN
B &B /CONT. AS SHOWN
B &B /CONT. AS SHOWN
B &B /CONT. AS SHOWN
B &B /CONT. AS SHOWN
CONDITION SPACING
B &B /CONT.
B &B /CONT.
B &B /CONT.
B &B /CONT.
B &B /CONT.
B &8 /CONT.
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
AS SHOWN
CONTAINER SPACING
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
BR /TRANS.GRD AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER • AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER AS SHOWN
CONTAINER SPACING
CUTTING 24" O.0
CONTAINER 36' O.C.
CONTAINER 24" O.C.
CONTAINER 36" O.0
CONTAINER 36" O.C.
CONTAINER 36" O.0
CUTTING 24" O.C.
CONTAINER 24" O.C.
CONTAINER 36" 0.C.
SOUTH 180th STREET GRADE SEPARATION
no
dale
revision]
sheet se of 144
job no ADO084
scale 1' = 20'
dote 2/20/01 l
0 20 40
SCALE 1"=20'-0"
L.,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT_
— ENGINEERING — STREETS— WATER — SEWER — PARKS— BUILDING—
designed
drawn
by
n/de
DC
checked
prof mg
JB
CCW
data
4
4
4/02/01
4/02/01
pro] dir CLP 4/02/01
Add tik no
CONSULTANTS
J.A. 'RUMOR
Ai /001ATu. P110
INmlM'0 /
LANDSCAPE DETAILS SHEET 1
SOUTH 180th STREET GRADE SEPARATION
no date
revisions
sheet 60 al 144
job no A00064
scale I',= 20'
date 2/20/01
AQUATIC PLANTING DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
NOTE;
•MULCH COMPLETELY BETWEEN
ALL PLANTS EXCEPT IN SEEDED
AND MARSH AREAS.
•PLANT SO THAT TOP OF
ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH
THE FINISHED GRADE.
3" MULCH. KEEP MULCH
AWAY FROM TRUNK.
FORM SAUCER WITH
. 3" CONTINUOUS RIM
FINISH GRADE
EXISTING SUBGRADE
PLANTING SOIL. WATER
AND TAMP TO REMOVE
ALL AIR POCKETS.
SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING
PITS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.
TUBERS CORMS. AND /OR ROOTS
PLANTED & WEIGHTED WITH
8d NAIL
1e=11( =lir= ` 11II -11
111 II .:; .. Il il.
— i 1 il' lcli =iiFilF= n =n =u II
1= 11 II11# � 11= 111=1 = 1 i 111=11
SMALL TREE/ SHRUB DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
PROVIDE MYLAR RIBBON ON BAMBOO
STAKES TO PROTECT NEW PLANTINGS
FROM WILDLIFE CONSUMPTION AS
REQUIRED.
SPACING: 6" D.C.
J . 2 X DIA. OF ROOTBALL
NOTE:
• USE CHICKEN WIRE PROTECTION WHEN
WILDLIFE CONSUMPTION IS A PROBLEM.
SEE PLANT UST FOR AQUATIC PLANTING DEPTH CHART.
MULCH
CONTAINER PLANTING FIRMLY
EMBEDDED IN MUD. STAKE IF
NECESSARY.
— PLACE STRIPPED TOPSOIL (FROM WETLAND) OVER
WETLAND SUBGRADE TO A DEPTH OF 6 ".
�
FINISH GRADE
lir
COMPACTED SOIL
II I III-
I PROVIDE:
I 11: 1/3 OF TOTAL SNAGS 0 30' HEIGHT, 24" DIA.
1/3 OF TOTAL SNAGS O 20' HEIGHT, 20" DIA.
I11 -' 1 I I1 =' 1/3 OF TOTAL SNAGS 0 16' HEIGHT, 18" DIA.
vAiKS
SEE
2' -0" MAX.
HABITAT SNAG DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
15 BRANCHES MIN.
1 " - 3" DIA. MIN.
NOTE:
• STAKE TREES OVER 5'
HEIGHT.
• PLANT SO THAT TOP OF
ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH
THE FINISHED GRADE
•SCARIFY SIDES OF
PLANTING PITS PRIOR
TO BACKFILLING.
4
2 STRAND TWISTED .12
GAUGE GAL. WIRE ENCASED.
IN 1" DIA. RUBBER HOSE
BVC TM' TREATED
PINE STAKES DRIVEN TO
REFUSAL INTO UNDISTURBED
SUBSOIL MIN. 24" DEPTH
STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES
OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM
SUPPORT
SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX
WATER AND TAMP TO
REMOVE AIR POCKETS
CUT 6 CAVITIES
(PROJECT TOTAL)
AS DIRECTED BY
OWNER.
NEW SNAG TREE
CEDAR, SPRUCE
OR DOUGLAS FIR
DECIDUOUS TREE
SCALE:. NOT TO SCALE
41
0
A V v n :d °
+:-.. P al ►F
°
— 3" MULCH.
KEEP MULCH
AWAY FROM
TRUNK.
FORM SAUCER
WITH 3 "HIGH
CONTINUOUS
RIM.
11 =11 =11
11 =II =11 =1
i1= 11 =1 :1'7=11111-1-1.12111111111;=11
= 11. = = ,i1= 11 = 11 :i1 11 =11
1 =I L =11=1I = II.=
2X BALL OW.
y5 REBAR DOWEL MIN. 2 PER LOG
DRILL AND DOWEL LOGS AT OVERLAPPING
POINTS TO SECURE LOGS
#5 BAR - DRIVE THROUGH LOG AT AN
ANGLE TO ANCHOR LOG IN PLACE.
MIN. LENGTH 36" FOR SINGLE 'LOG.
MIN. LENGTH 48" FOR OVERLAPPING LOG.
MIN. 3 PER LOG.
BURY 1/3 OF LENGTH
OF LOG TO ANCHOR
POND ELEVATION
SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX
WATER AND TAMP TO
REMOVE AIR POCKETS
7-111 I 1 I I -
—111 - 11, _I I'•
LOG HABITAT DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
yl4 bll £I6 g i. 4I1 01. I6 I9 IL I9 IS Iti I£ IZ IL WOI
Ii iiiiliiii 111111111 u1�lln1 iii�11111 X 1111111 I�iIiii nulnii nnliui n111111i 1111111 n111{n1 IInI1111 111111111 iniliiii unllnl
NOTE:
•STAKE TREES OVER 5' HEIGHT.
•PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT
BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED
GRADE.
• FLAG GUYING WIRES WITH
SURVEYOR TAPE.
•SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING
PITS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.
2 STRAND TWISTED 12 GAUGE
GAL. WIRE ENCASED IN 1" DIA.
RUBBER HOSE.
6' -0" "BVC" TM TREATED
PINE STAKES DRIVEN TO
REFUSAL INTO UNDISTURBED
SUBSOIL MIN. 24" DEPTH.
2 X BALL DIA.
CONIFER TREE PLANTING
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
-- SUBGRADE
NOTE
USE OF ON SITE TREES REMOVED AS
PART OF CLEARING REQUIREMENT IS
ACCEPTABLE. PROVIDE CEDAR, FIR. OR
SPRUCE LOGS.
12 " -18" DIA. X 15' -25' LOGS.
LOCATE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
BURY LOGS TO
ANCHOR (TYP.)
RUNE LIMBS BACK TO
WITHIN 12" OF TRUNK (TYPICAL)
LOPE VARIES
SEE PLANS
3" MULCH.
KEEP MULCH
AWAY FROM
TRUNK.
FORM SAUCER
WITH 3 "HIGH
CONTINUOUS
RIM.
KS.
n:.
15 REBAR -DRIVE THRU LOG AT
AN ANGLE TO ANCHOR LOG IN PLACE
MIN 36' LENGTH FOR SINGLE LOG
MIN 48' LENGTH FOR OVERLAPPING LOGS
WITH A MIN OF 3 PER LOG.
LOG HUMMOCK PLAN DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
TAMP SOIL AROUND C
WATER SURFACE
•
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
18" LONG LIVE STAKES
3/4 " -1 DIA. WITH 2
LATERAL BUDS ABOVE
GRADE
RAISED PLANTING AREA
GRADE TO BE 12 -24'
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
PUBLIC NATORKS DEPT_
— ENGINEERING— STREETS— WATER— SEWER — PARKS — BUILDING—
PROVIDE LOGS 15 -2D' IN LENGTH
AND MIN. OF 12' IN DIAMETER.
LOGS SHALL BE CEDAR OR FIR
SPECIES IMPORTED FROM AN
APPROPRIATE OFF SITE LOCATION.
warm,
I[taUO
1/104.01 /1aN[CI
— L NNW
mllft�[ as ty
by date
designed TW/ba 4/02/01
draw DC 4/02/01
checked JB 4/02/01
proj eng CCW 4/02/01
proj dir CLP 4/02/01
Ifdd bk no
W
0
U)
#5 REBAR -DRIVE THRU LOG AT AN
ANGLE TO ANCHOR,' MIN. 3 PER LOG:
MIN. 36" LENGTH FOR SINGLE LOG.
MIN. 48" LENGTH, FOR OVERLAPPING
LOGS.
LOG HUMMOCK SECTION
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE •
J ,r ,
1 ,11 ,04, ' „\ 9( V
• : '�'' , •
AMPHIBIAN STICK BUNDLE
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
CONSULTANTS
J. IL sRIAAaA
Of1001ATIS. N10
-. ertglbrob
Iplaseer
1 III III 1 ) III ijIIIII Ili 11;i I,I,I ,Ili III1 ) 1 0 , 1 IIi 111 ij.i L iii Iji iii iji iji Ill iii III III III
Inch l,n; 11 I I ' , 2I ` 3, ,. :4I/ I 'tt l . I 5I I I I 6 I
W STCOTT
Since T8n
yll b £L 6`L o I s l a L , 19 . P l£ IZ .I- IN 01
�11 III) II l )111 nu IIII I!I)IIlI! In)Ii it mitt i un I9
11n Inllnu ItI! `
I!I In)IIII iiitIi it I)ulnn Ilnlnl)
. I 1 I 4 i\`��► 11!`J� �I�l11�1^ h.'J� IICIII � ill l ;i l�l�l�r=
III = III =TI 1=I t 1 1 �� I II i :
LANDSCAPE DETAILS SHEET 2
SOUTH 180th STREET. GRADE SEPARATION
1 111
RAISED PLANTING AREA
GRADE TO BE 12 -24"
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
BLACK NYLON
LINE
2 "0 WOODEN
STAKE TYP.
WATER'S
EDGE
STICK BUNDLE.
SECURE IN PLACE WITH BLACK NYLON
LINE (1/8 AND 18" WOOD STAKES.
USE (7) 1O' -15' WILLOW OR ALDER
BRANCHES. CONFIRM LOCATION WITH
ENGINEER.
no
date
revisions
COUNTER SINK
1/3 DIA. OF LOG
sheet et of 144
job no /100084
stale 1' = 20'
dote 2/20/01
0
>ii
H
U
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE , QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
▪ Establishing temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and other BMPs as required
by the City of Tukwila, including, but not limited to
— Filter fabric fencing and /or straw bale barriers along the edge of construction areas to capture
suspended sediments in construction site runoff discharging into the wetlands
— Collection of sediments and other fine- grained materials deposited on the road surface
periodically during construction to prevent washoff into sensitive areas by precipitation
WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
Wetlands are known to play significant functional roles in their respective ecosystems and have uses
that are valued by society. These intrinsic features are complex, often inseparable, and difficult to
assess and quantify. Evaluations of the functions of individual wetlands are necessarily qualitative
and dependent upon professional judgment.
A wetland functions and values assessment was conducted for impacted wetlands within the study
area (Wetlands A and C) using the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi- Quantitative Assessment
Methodology, Draft User's Manual (Cooke, 1996). Using the Semi - quantitative Assessment
Methodology (SAM), ratings were assessed for eight categories of wetland functions based on a
number of variables that were evaluated for each category listed below. Functional assessment data
forms are included in Appendix D.
Flood/Storm Water Control
Wetlands serve in flood /stormwater control through detention of peak flows within a wetland system
and the slow discharge of the water to downstream receiving waters. The efficiency of a particular
wetland system in performing runoff control is based upon the storage capacity and outlet discharge
capacity of the wetland relative to the magnitude of the inflow. The value of wetlands in reducing
downstream flooding increases with an increase in wetland area, the magnitude of the flood, the
proximity of the wetland to the flooded area, and the lack of other storage areas.
Base Flow /Groundwater Support Functions
Wetlands can recharge an aquifer, discharge to a downstream wetland, and /or attenuate surface
water flows. Wetlands can provide groundwater recharge or discharge, or provide both, at different
times of the year. The majority of wetlands serve predominantly for groundwater discharge and only
a few are recharge systems. Groundwater recharge replenishes aquifers and filters water. With
later discharge elsewhere (often in other wetlands), it provides a perennial water source for wetlands
and provides dry season stream flow, benefiting stream dependent species.
Erosion/Shoreline Protection Functions
Erosion control is closely linked with other wetland functions and is most often of concern in wetland
systems with water flow sufficient to resuspend and transport sediments, or in wetlands that have
been physically disturbed. Decreased water velocity, vegetative structure, soil root - binding
properties, and substrate type will lessen the effect of water - related erosion. This function is
especially present in shallow, flood plain wetlands where velocities are slow and vegetation is dense.
Such vegetation is composed of species that provide for effective trapping of sediments and which
impede or slow water flow so that sediments settle out. Erosion and shoreline protection is especially
important in riparian corridors where the vegetation can have strong root systems to hold sediments
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
23
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
t.
t :
t
together and prevent loss of stream banks. This function is not present in isolated wetlands that do
not have water flowing through them.
Water Quality Improvement Functions
The morphology of freshwater wetlands provides simple physical processes that remove sediment.
Flood plain morphology, the length and width of the wetland, landscape characterization, vegetation
community structure, and productivity have a great influence on the water velocity, type of
sedimentation, and rate of sedimentation. Particulate materials are removed through settling, which
is controlled by water velocity, particle size, and the residence time of water in the wetland, through
physical filtration by vegetation, and substrate.
Wetlands remove excessive nutrients, heavy metals, and certain organic compounds through a
variety of physical and biological processes. The ability of a wetland to perform these functions is
closely related to other functions such as sediment removal, water quality parameters, wetland
hydrology, and vegetation community composition, density, richness, structure, and productivity.
The ability of a wetland to perform these functions varies with the nature of the wetland, the degree
of disturbance of the wetland, and according to unusual events and seasonal cycles. Water quality
parameters such as dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and total suspended solids (TSS) influence the
chemical form and fate of nutrients, metals, and organic compounds in wetland systems. Nutrients,
and other pollutants that often bind with suspended sediments, are incorporated into the soils
through sedimentation. Nutrients, metals, and organic materials stored in the soils are taken up by
vegetation as biomass, buried in the sediments as peat is deposited, or exported out of the wetland.
Natural Biological Support Functions
Wetlands generally are characterized by high primary productivity (food production that fuels the
food chain). Primary production within wetlands can be important to wildlife and fish that spend
part or all of their lives within wetlands. There are two major energy flow patterns in wetlands: the
grazing food chain which involves the consumption of living green plants, and the detrital food chain
composed of organisms that depend on detritus and /or organic debris for their food source. Areas
with surface flow have the potential to export decomposed photosynthetic products beyond the
boundary of the wetland.
Nutrient cycling in wetlands occurs in both plants and the sediments. Nutrients can be stored in
sediments by being bound to organic compounds and clays. Nutrients that are incorporated into
plant tissues are unavailable to the ecosystem as long as the plant material is alive. Annual growth
in deciduous plants usually dies back at the end of the growing season and the biomass ends up
falling to the ground. The biomass either decomposes and releases the nutrients as dissolved
compounds, or stays bound to organic matter in saturated conditions until conditions become
conducive for decomposition. Once the nutrients are released, they become available for uptake by
other plants, can be stored in the sediments, and the cycle continues.
Many species of wildlife are adapted to or require wetland habitats for at least a portion of their life
cycle. The variety of vegetation, substrate types, hydrologic regimes, and the sizes and
characteristics of the edge between habitat types are critical factors for wildlife. The association
between adjacent habitats is especially important in riparian areas that are crucial to many species
of wildlife.
Overall Habitat Functions
Plant species occur in distinct communities that are identifiable and often repeated across the
landscape. Most species of both plant and wildlife have preferred habitats in specific zones
associated with physical gradients such as light, moisture, hydrologic regime, and elevation. High
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
24
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
3
r
plant species' richness is often associated with areas that have multiple habitats in close proximity.
Mature wetland systems are characterized by the presence of many niches accounting for high plant
and animal diversity. Rare, large, or unusual habitats are valuable and are often set aside as
sanctuaries. The rareness of a wetland community "type" may be due to the lack of a particular set
of environmental factors or species distributions in a particular watershed or region. The rarity of a
wetland- associated species may be due to the fact that the species is adapted to a specific set of
environmental conditions, which may not be present in very many places. The opportunity for the
species to have appropriate conditions for living may therefore be rare. Wetlands may also be
differentially lost and rare in a region, because particular wetland types have experienced more
development pressure or are especially sensitive to human impacts.
Specific Habitat Functions
Invertebrate Habitat
Wetlands near aquatic habitats can be considered to have aquatic invertebrates (insects), even if
none are directly observed. Examples of invertebrate habitat are muddy shallow water areas where
water velocities are slow, there is no fine sediment build -up, and thin - stemmed emergent plants,
such as sedges, rushes and some aquatic herbs, are present.
Amphibian. Habitat
Water depth is important, with individual species preferring specific depths. In general, shallow
water zones between 1 and 2.5 feet of water are ideal. Urbanized wetlands where bullfrogs are
present are less likely to have a rich amphibian fauna due to their competition with native species.
Fish Habitat
It is assumed that if a stream associated with a wetland has good gravels, permanent moving water,
and overhanging vegetation along the banks of the stream is present to prevent water temperatures
from getting too high, it has high fish habitat potential. If the same conditions exist, but an
obstruction over 15 feet long is present downstream, then the habitat potential is only moderate to
low.
Mammal Habitat
High habitat potential is where a large, very structurally diverse habitat is present within the
wetland or adjacent buffer boundary that is at least 100 -feet wide. The presence of houses and
domesticated pets decreases the likelihood of the presence of native small mammals.
Bird Habitat
High habitat potential is available in seasonally flooded agricultural fields, large structurally diverse
wetlands, or lacustrine (lake or large pond) systems with associated wetland and buffer habitats.
CulturallSocioeconomic Functions
Cultural and socioeconomic characteristics are evaluated from a purely value -based perspective.
Most of the human -use opportunities can be quantified by determining the ownership of the wetland
and associated buffer, and the proximity of the wetland to humans who could potentially use the
wetland for recreational or commercial purposes.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
25
BERGER /ABAM, A00084
May 2001
.. s
Not all wetlands provide all of the functions and values listed above. It should be noted that four
wetlands within the study area extended beyond the study area boundaries and were not
investigated beyond these boundaries. Functions and values discussed in this report represent only
the portions of the wetlands within the study area.
Z
For
ease of discussion purposes in this report, the numbered rating for each category has been
converted to a high, moderate, or low rating as follows. w
ct
• High = 75 -100 percent of maximum score 6 U
• Moderate = 50 -74 percent of maximum score 0 O
• Low = <50 percent of maximum score co 0
WI
Based on these ratings, each wetland was given an overall low, moderate, or high rating. H
w w
w
Wetland A functional values rated 2
• MODERATE for flood and stormwater control; u.. <
• MODERATE for base flow and groundwater support; I = CI
Ill
• LOW for erosion and shoreline protection; E _
• HIGH for water quality improvement; Z 1- • MODERATE for natural biological support; Z O
• • HIGH for overall habitat functions; w
• HIGH for specific habitat functions; and
• MODERATE for cultural and socioeconomic values. 0 w
O 1—
w W
2
1- -
LLO
.Z
L
0
0
Wetland C functional values rated
• MODERATE for flood and stormwater control;
• MODERATE for base flow and groundwater support;
• Erosion and shoreline protection did not apply;
• MODERATE for water quality improvement;
• LOW for natural biological support;
• LOW for overall habitat functions;
• LOW for specific habitat functions; and
• LOW for cultural and socioeconomic values.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Wetland Regulation and Classification
The primary federal laws that regulate activities in or near wetlands are Sections 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 401 of the
CWA mandates that federally permitted activities in wetlands comply with the CWA and state water
quality standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for
administering the Section 401 regulations in the state of Washington. Under Section 404 of the
CWA, the Corps has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge of dredged
or fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United States (Federal Register, 1986).
City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations
Wetland impacts are under the jurisdiction of the cities of Tukwila and Kent, and will be mitigated
within the City of Renton. The three cities have agreed that mitigation will be performed according
to the City of Tukwila standards. The City of Tukwila, through the adoption of the Sensitive Areas
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
26
BERGERJABAM, A00084
May 2001
D 0
Z
Wetland Class
Wetland Buffer
Type 1 Wetlands: Those wetlands that meet any of the following
criteria:
a) The presence of species listed by the federal government or the
State of Washington as endangered or threatened, or the presence
of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species;
b) Wetlands having 40 to 60 percent permanent open water in
dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; or
c) Wetlands equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and having three
or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by
permanent open water.
100 feet
Type 2 Wetlands: Those that meet any of the following criteria:
Wetlands greater than 1 acre in size;
a) Wetlands equal to or less than 1 acre in size and having three or
more wetland classes;
b) Wetlands equal to or less than 1 acre in size, that have a forested
wetland class comprised of at least 20 percent coverage of the total
surface area;
c) The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or
d) The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrence.
50 feet
Type 3 Wetlands: Those wetlands that are equal to or less than 1 acre
in size and that have two or fewer wetland classes.
25 feet
E<:
1 q
The City of Tukwila classifies wetlands according to the system developed by USFWS (Cowardin,
et al. 1979). Wetlands are rated by the City of Tukwila according to three categories, as shown in
Table 2.
E.i
Overlay (Chapter 18.45, Tukwila Municipal Code), regulates development activities within and
adjacent to wetlands and other sensitive areas.
Regulated wetlands are defined as "those ponds or lakes 30 acres or less and those lands subject to
the "wetland" definition..." in the Methodology Section of this study. Constructed wetlands are not
considered wetlands. Isolated wetlands that are less than 1,000 square feet or smaller in area may
not require compensatory mitigation (Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Municipal Code).
Table 2. City of Tukwila Wetlands Rating' System
(Chapter 18.45.020.C., Tukwila Municipal Code, City of Tukwila, 1997)
According to City of Tukwila classification, Wetland A would likely be classified as Type 1 wetland,
because it is equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and has three or more wetland classes, one of
which is open water. Type 1 wetlands require a 100 -foot buffer. Wetland C would be classified as a
Category 3 wetland by the City of Kent because it is equal to or less than 1 acre in size and has two
or fewer wetland classes. Type 3 wetlands require a 25 -foot buffer.
Tukwila Mitigation Requirements
A mitigation plan must be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, and
relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC 18.45.080A, 080B, and 080H. The mitigation plan is
developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the planning director.
Wetland an/or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly
demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
27
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
qualitative functions. In order to achieve the City of Tukwila's goal of no -net loss of wetland
functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands require the applicant to provide a restoration,
enhancement, or creation plan to compensate for the wetland impacts at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (area
created:area impacted). For this project, the City of Tukwila will require compensation at a ratio of
1.5 to 1. The plan will follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45, which are outlined
below.
Chapter 19.45.080.C.2.d — Mitigation Standards
The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts
to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in
number and complexity. The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows.
1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for
both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site.
2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This
should include a description of site - selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species,
and resource functions.
3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals and for beginning
remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water - quality standards, species
richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological, or
hydrological criteria.
4. Detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques.
This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and
be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any
development proposal.
5. Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed
project. An outline shall be included that details how the monitoring data will be evaluated by
agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress.
6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken
when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met.
7. Performance security or other assurance device.
MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
For this project, the project design team considered all practical efforts to avoid and minimize
potential impacts that could occur to wetlands and streams. Impacts to Wetlands B, D, and Herrera
A and B and their associated wetland buffers will be entirely avoided. Mitigation measures will rely
on wetland creation along with buffer enhancement as compensation for impacts to Wetlands A and
C. A minimum of 1.66 acres of wetland replacement is required according to the required
replacement ratio of 1.5:1 for Category 2 and 3 wetlands (Tukwila and Kent standards).
Furthermore, per an agreement between the cities of Tukwila and Renton, an additional 0.24 acre of
wetland will be created to compensate for lost buffer acreage on the proposed mitigation site. The
wetland mitigation plan consists of 1.9 acres of wetland creation and 0.2 acres of surrounding buffer.
The plan is to create new wetland area contiguous with the existing City of Renton W -45 wetland
area to the north; thereby, eliminating the existing habitat fragmentation and enlarging and
consolidating the existing wetland complex.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
28
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
f
The criteria for selecting this wetland creation and restoration site included the following
E 1 considerations.
• A preference for sites located within the same drainage sub -basin
• Sites located within areas with sufficient hydrology to support wetland vegetation and seasonal
amphibian habitat
Wetland mitigation goals for the project are as follows.
• To achieve no -net, on -site loss of wetland and wetland buffer functions and values within the
Springbrook Creek drainage basin
z
• To compensate for loss of Wetland C and the filled portions of Wetland A ,H z
lr
• To avoid habitat fragmentation 6 m
i0
0
The objective of the mitigation plan developed for the project is to create a mitigation wetland with u) W
several habitat types to compensate for the lost functions and values of Wetland C and the filled w =
portions of Wetland A and its buffer, and to provide connectivity to existing habitat corridors. The —1 1 _ .
created wetland will be consistent with mitigation requirements as stated in the Tukwila Municipal u) p
Code by providing a minimum of a 1.5 to 1 replacement ratio for wetland areas. Based upon the M
existing functions of the wetlands and wetland buffers to be filled, the created mitigation wetland g 5
area would provide at a minimum a net gain in the following functional wetland ratings to the
following levels. ,Y2 d
I _ w
• HIGH for flood and stormwater control; z 1
• HIGH for base flow and groundwater support; Z 0
• • MODERATE for erosion and shoreline protection; W w
• HIGH for water quality improvement; 2 p
• HIGH for natural biological support; U to
O —
• HIGH for overall habitat functions; CI I—
• HIGH for specific habitat functions; and = w
• HIGH for cultural and socioeconomic values. F—
u- O
.z
w
0 -
O I—
The above stated goals and objectives for on -site mitigation will be accomplished by creating a new Z
wetland complex with palustrine forested, scrub - shrub, emergent marsh, and seasonal open water
components. The wetland will be located adjacent to Herrera Wetlands A and B, within the parcel of
land in Renton just east of the BNSF tracks and north of South 180th Street (Figure 11).
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
Wetland Creation Criteria
▪ The potential for connectivity to existing habitat corridors
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
29
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
tv
r
r
Not to Scale
Wetland
A
cc
cc
u.
u)
z
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers 1999
\ Wetland /1
Mitigation
Area \
Herrera
Wetland
A
So. 180th St.
Herrera ?
• *Aland. ,
• , ▪ f
5A•
•
,P•'• •
•
tone..•-•rle•
Herrera Wetlands Mitigation Site
South 180th Street Grade Separation
• --
."•••
f_
•
f •
:•. •
•
• • •
•
•
•
• •
;•
( t! . .g• tk
A514
Figure 11
air40.41
< •
.1— 6
w 2
0 0
(0
w
w
- J
w 0
g
u.
co 3
ui
Z
1— 0
Z
LIJ uj
0
C.) co
0
O !—
al w
I 0
L i= 0
w
C.)
;.±..
k •
Wetland Creation
The area in which the created wetland will be located contains fill material which elevates the area
above the present elevation of the surrounding wetlands. The wetland will be created through the
following steps.
Z
• The existing invasive, non- native vegetation, such as English ivy and Himalayan blackberry, will ,Z w
be removed. A few cherry trees may be left in place in the buffer areas, if possible, to provide C
food for birds.
JU
0
■ The existing fill will be excavated down to or below the elevation of the existing wetlands, as W
shown on the attached grading plan. J H
u) u...
• The native exposed soils would be amended as needed with decomposed organic mulch to W O
promote the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Decomposed organic mulch would be comprised M
entirely of recycled organic materials that have been sorted, ground, aerated, and aged for a 11
minimum of one year and of which 100 percent will pass a 7/16 -inch sieve. The mulch will have a u_ j
pH between 5.5 and 7.0, and will have a carbon to nitrogen ratio between 20:1 and 40:1 with a u) 0
= w
maximum electrical conductivity of 3 ohms /cm. The product shall be tested and test results will l - ' _
document specified requirements. z 1—
Z
■ Habitat structures will be placed within selected areas of the created wetlands. Habitat W
D❑
U co
— Habitat logs consisting of cedar or fir logs of the dimensions shown on the attached drawings. o I_-
The habitat logs would be anchored and installed as shown on the drawings. Habitat logs to = w
be located and placed per plan. i— H
L.1.- O
— Habitat snags consisting of cedar, spruce, or Douglas fir logs of the dimensions shown on the to Z
co
drawings.
structures would include
— Hummocks, constructed as shown on the drawings. Use of three logs, of the dimensions
shown on the drawings, placed to create an enclosed barrier, to retain soil and raise the
planting medium. If on site availability of logs is limited, appropriate logs to be imported
from an approved off site location.
• Areas which are planned as seasonal open -water areas and emergent marsh will be excavated
below the elevation of the existing wetland. Ground and surfacewater data (see geotechnical
study, attached) indicates that hydrology would be present to support the wetlands. Water levels
in the wetland creation areas will be monitored through the installation of piezometers.
The created wetland will incorporate at least one shallow, seasonal open -water feature which can
provide seasonal amphibian breeding and rearing habitat, and emergent marsh, scrub - shrub, and
forested components. Table 3 shows the ratio of impacted vs. created wetland types. The mosaic of
created vegetative communities is expected to result in a net increase in wetland functions over
their current levels, and may increase the cumulative functional value of the adjacent sensitive areas
due to the greater diversity of vegetation and habitat structure. Planting plan, plant list, and
grading details were prepared by J.A. Brennan Associates, and are shown in the attached
Appendix E.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
31
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
U =
O ~
Z
Wetland Type
Impacts
(acres)
% Impact
Creation
(acres)
%Creation
Open water
0.08
7
0.12
6
Emergent marsh
0.12
11
0.06
3
Wet meadow
0.09
8
0.46
24
Scrub /shrub
0.82
74
0.30
16
Forested wetland
N/a
0
0.96
51
Total Acres
1.11
100
1.9
100
•
r,
Table 3. Impacted vs. Created Wetland Types
The mitigation wetland will form a continuum with adjacent and nearby habitat corridors, which will
result in a combined net gain in wildlife habitat function for all associated systems. Since the
wetland will be created adjacent to and in close proximity to other wetlands and the Springbrook
Creek corridor, wildlife habitat fragmentation will be avoided.
Within the created wetland and buffer areas, shrubs and trees would be planted in groups designed
to duplicate and supplement the plant communities in the existing wetland areas to be filled and, if
applicable, in the adjacent wetland areas. Planting in the wetland creation area would be done by
hand or using small mechanized equipment that would not compact soils. Within the created
wetland, a variety of native tree, shrub, and emergent species will be planted at appropriate
elevations with respect to seasonal water levels. Plants with special shade requirements, such as
red -twig dogwood, Western red cedar, and other evergreens, will be either planted in shade or
phased to prevent mortality. Plant species to be used in all mitigation would be commercially
available from local sources and native to the Puget Sound region. As mutually agreed by the cities
of Renton, Tukwila, and Kent, the created wetland would, at a minimum, be a Type 2 wetland
(Renton categorization), and would have a 50 -foot protected buffer.
The created wetland complex will be located adjacent to and north of the proposed detention pond for
the project. If necessary, clean water from the detention pond may be directed into the wetland
complex area to maintain wetland hydrology during extremely dry periods.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Interlocal Agreement
According to the proposed Interlocal Agreement between the cities of Tukwila and Renton regarding
the improvements to South 180th Street, the City of Renton will own the created wetlands. The City
of Tukwila will provide 10 years of wetland monitoring and maintenance in accordance with the
Corps permit. The 10 -year monitoring period will begin upon final acceptance of the project by the
City of Tukwila. Tukwila's contractor will provide wetland monitoring for Year 1, as part of the
warranty period. Tukwila will provide city biologists to inspect and monitor the wetland during the
next nine -year period on a biyearly basis for Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10. A yearly report will
summarize the inspections and monitoring and any remediation requirements and actions by the
City of Tukwila. Reports will be distributed to the Corps, Ecology, the cities of Renton and Tukwila,
and any other appropriate entities. A small works contract will be administered by Tukwila to
address remediation requirements, including but not limited to selective weeding, plant replacement
and /or enhancement, and irrigation maintenance. The City of Renton will assume maintenance of
the wetland at the end of Year 10 of the wetland - monitoring period.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
32
BERGERJABAM, A00084
May 2001
t
•
Performance Standards
A set of performance standards has been established to ensure the success of the mitigation project
and are detailed below. Monitoring results for the created wetland will be compared to these
performance standards. The mitigation plan will be considered successful if the monitoring results
show that the performance standards have been achieved at the end of three years following
construction. These standards are based on recommendations in the King County Sensitive Area
Mitigation Guidelines (A. Mockler, 2000).
Vegetation Performance Standards
• Invasive species shall comprise not more than 10 percent total cover at any time during the
monitoring program. Invasive weed include, but are not limited to
Reed canarygrass
Himalayan blackberry
Evergreen blackberry
Scot's broom
English holly
English ivy
Japanese knotweed
Loosestrife
Bindweed
• Desirable native volunteers like red alder and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) may
account for up to 20 percent of cover in any stratum.
• Cover and Survival
— All Areas: 100 percent survival of planted species at the end of Year 1, as per warranty.
- Emergent Marsh and Wet Meadow:
Cover: 60 percent by Year 1, 80 percent by Year 3, 90 to 100 percent by Year 5
Survival: 85 percent by Year 3, or demonstrate that species diversity and distribution mimic
reference standard wetlands
- Scrub -Shrub
Cover: 60 percent by Year 3 and 85 percent by Year 5
Survival: 85 percent by Year 3, or demonstrate that species diversity and distribution mimic
reference standard wetlands
- Forested
Sapling Tree Cover: 60 percent by Year 3; 85 percent by Year 5
Survival: 85 percent by Year 3, or demonstrate that species diversity and distribution mimic
reference standard wetlands
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
33
BERGERJABAM, A00084
May 2001
•
— �h•e: ii'y;� %1:r.Vkt'.:Yl`,is
• v:'S'�� �.y i.(' ��:" y _'~:iGiLiM.: - 1 :
Z
Q•
6
J U
0 0
N 0
• W
J
W • O
� <
• 0
1
1— W
Z=
Z 1—
W uj
2
0 co
0-
0 )—
W W.
H�
L' O
..
W
O ~
Z
Hydrology Performance Standards
• Emergent marsh/wet meadow communities: Can tolerate a range of 1 to 4 -inch inundation from
March 1 through May 15, on average, not exceeding 8 inches in water level fluctuation at any
time to maintain a stable hydroperiod
• Scrub -shrub communities: Can tolerate a range of 2 to 12 -inch inundation for scrub -shrub
communities from March 1 through May 15, on average. This plant community can tolerate a
flashy hydroperiod.
V-
FM",
the following.
• Forested communities: Can tolerate saturation between soil surface and 12 -inch depth March 1
through May 15, on average. This plant community requires a stable hydroperiod.
MONITORING
The objective of the monitoring program is to ensure that the wetland creation will be successful and
will fulfill the functions for which they were designed. Post - construction monitoring will be
performed for vegetation cover and survival, water levels, and wildlife use within the created
wetland and buffer area for a 10 -year period following successful installation inspection. Post -
construction monitoring visits will be completed twice - yearly in April and August. Data collected
during the monitoring period will be used to determine whether plant cover, survival, and hydrologic
regimes are in accordance with the goals and performance standards. If any performance standards
are not met, all, or part, of the contingency plan may need to be implemented. Post - construction
monitoring reports will be submitted to the Corps, Ecology, the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and
other pertinent agencies by October 1 of Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 throughout the monitoring
period, starting in the year of successful installation inspection. All post- construction monitoring
reports must contain methods, results, analysis, and recommendations. Any deficiency discovered
during any monitoring or inspection visit must be corrected within 60 days.
Monitoring Method
Four permanent transects will be established in the wetland creation area. Transects will be
oriented east -west across the site to include all wetland creation plant communities (emergent
marsh, scrub - shrub, wet meadow, forest). The same transects will be used throughout the
monitoring period. In addition, one piezometer will be permanently installed in each of the seasonal
open water and emergent marsh wetland creation areas to measure water levels. Once the wetland
creation areas have been established, transect locations will be marked on a map and submitted to
the City of Tukwila.
Photographs with descriptions (including date encoding and compass bearings) will be used to
provide a visual perspective and to supplement the sampling data. Photographs will be taken twice
' annually (April and August) at permanent sampling points, including piezometer in overlapping
sequences. Photographs will include project pans covering the entire site, taken once a year at the
same location. Wildlife observations will also be recorded during site visits for the monitoring period.
A comprehensive final report will be completed in the final year. The reports will generally include
■ Survival, vigor, and cover from each plant community
IN Site hydrology, including extent of inundation, water -level fluctuation, saturation, depth to
groundwater, function of any hydrologic structures, inputs, outlets
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
34
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
._a
1
r
■ Buffer conditions (e.g., surrounding land use, use by humans and domestic animals)
• Wildlife use, including mammals, amphibians, invertebrates, and birds
• Soil conditions, including texture, Munsell color, rooting, and presence of oxidized rhizospheres
• Photographs taken from permanent photo - points as shown on Monitoring Plan Map
■ General site conditions, including vandalism, trash, storm or other damage, if applicable
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation will be monitored biannually during April and August, along each of the permanently
established sampling transects described above.
A total live count of all trees and shrubs for the entire mitigation site will be conducted at the end of
the first year as part of the landscaper's construction warranty inspection. The total number of
individuals by species will be compared to the original planting design in order to calculate percent
survival. Vigor and vitality status will be assessed using the rating scale below.
• Plant healthy and reproducing
■ Plant healthy and growing vigorously
• Plant maintaining and new growth evident - possibly symptoms of disease, chlorosis, or
predation
• Plant struggling - signs include dead tips or branches, diseases, pests, or other stressors
• Top of plant dead - possibly vegetation suckering
• Plant dead
• Plant missing
Tree and shrub plantings may not achieve their mature cover potential during the monitoring
period. Therefore, percent areal cover alone is an inadequate representation of mitigation success.
Percent survival is a stronger barometer of mitigation success, for if a tree or shrub survives for
5 years, it will very likely attain its growth potential 5 to 10 years later. Percent survival and vigor
and vitality of trees and shrubs will be monitored for ten years.
The mitigation area will also be inspected for colonization by invasive and volunteer plant species.
Maintenance activities will include removal of weedy invasive species, so that cover by invasive
species does not exceed 10 percent of total cover.
Water Level Monitoring
Water levels in the mitigation wetlands will be monitored twice - yearly to determine the water levels
for the spring and summer hydroperiods in the wetland creation area. Baseline hydrologic
conditions will be established during the initial construction phase. Overall water coverage or
degree of saturation will be assessed to determine if suitable hydrologic conditions are present to
support the targeted species.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
35
BERGERJABAM, A00084
May 2001
t•;Sasa`ss3s =+'��. ::}:vii'��%u�rt:5�ti�. w.c•d,r.». aar.c.;»c.H.s::.«wM:+,• •
• a tixt+neih%c•• v';a;
t
Wildlife Observation
Wildlife observations will be recorded during site visits throughout the monitoring period. The
assessment of wildlife use is not intended to be all- inclusive, but will be a qualitative assessment of
observed wildlife. Utilization of habitat features will also be assessed and recorded. The observed
quantity and diversity of the species using the mitigation area will be summarized in the monitoring
reports. ~ W
Basic Program Guidelines
JU
U O
Standard methods for collection of data analysis will be used. These methods will be taken from N W
published literature on other western Washington palustrine scrub -shrub wetland/wetland w
ecosystems.
W O
2
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Based on the findings of the monitoring program and general site observations made during =
monitoring visits, some maintenance activities may be necessary to ensure the success of the E'
mitigation plan and achievement of the performance standards. Maintenance activities are Z F'
considered minor reparations or remedial actions that can be taken without enacting the contingency z Og
plan. Any major reparations or remedial actions shall be undertaken as part of the contingency plan. 111 w
Maintenance activities could include replacement of dead plants according to performance standards,
removal of tree stakes, removal of invasive weedy species, repair of habitat features, removal of 0
trash, and repair of any minor damage occurring as a result of vandalism. If irrigation is necessary, 0 H
plantings will receive no more than 1 inch of water /week from July 15 to October 10, depending on = w
summer conditions.
.. Z
W
CONTINGENCY PLAN H
The contingency plan will provide for potential major reparations or remedial actions. If the desired Z
mitigation goals, as measured by the monitoring program and performance standards, are not
achieved, or if observations made during monitoring visits warrant, upon coordination with the
Corps, Ecology, and the cities of Renton and Tukwila, the contingency plan would be implemented.
Conditions that would require the need for major reparation or remedial action include large -scale
plant mortality, inadequate water regimes, or failure of mitigation area soils to support wetland
hydrologic regimes and vegetation. Upon a determination that implementation of the contingency
plan is warranted, a recommendation shall be made for the necessary major remedial action. Such
actions could include
• Revegetating the mitigation area with appropriate native species
• Modifying the flows into the mitigation area
• Further amending mitigation area soils
The contingency plan may be enacted in whole, or in part, whenever the action is warranted by the
monitoring reports. Contingency plans are prepared on a case -by -case basis to reflect the failed
mitigation characteristic and are subject to approval by the Corps, Ecology, and the cities of Tukwila
and Renton. All remedial actions will be supervised by the project biologist and would be subject to
the same monitoring /maintenance requirements as the original approved mitigation plan addendum.
The monitoring period may be extended at the discretion of the agencies listed above if final
inspection shows mitigation has not achieved performance standards, until performance standards
have been met.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
36
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
Species . '
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Bald eagle
Halieetus leucocephalus
Threatened
Bull trout
Saluelinus confluentus
Threatened
Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Threatened
r .
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Species lists for the project was received from USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). The lists indicated the potential presence of the following species within the project area:
As required under the Endangered Species Act, a biological assessment (BA) was prepared for the
project by the City of Tukwila (City of Tukwila, 2000). The project is receiving federal funding,
therefore, the lead federal agency for the BA is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The
FHWA submitted the BA to the NMFS in May of 2000 and has received a biological opinion on the
project.
LIMITATIONS
Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope of work, BERGER /ABAM warrants 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, as
outlined in the Methodology section. The results and conclusions of this report represent the
authors' best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the City of Tukwila, the
City of Renton, and the City of Kent, in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
- .' 41±ils hri:�C.S:a'.:a.�'i ai.snk •. 4 r'• ].t ti ijs '•J �" r t`
.r.•• . a:: ��. o. cu;.,::: �. i::... s» �eue5 ,arw.Lr.'l�ixnia::tu:i:L.r�: 4;t , _ M.ili�.._�S'
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan BERGER/ABAM. A00084
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 37 May 2001
City of Renton. 1992. Critical Areas Inventory, City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors.
1 Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates in association with R.W. Beck and Associates.
Bellevue, Washington.
r•
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Publ. # FWS /OBS-
79/31. 131 p.
z
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical H z z
Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. c
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and U O
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental v) O
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service, w =
Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. J F'
O
Federal Register. 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal 2
Sites of Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, pp. 85352 - 85353, U.S. Govt. Printing g —
Office, Washington, D.C. u- m
Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs _
of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p. 31810, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, z1
D.C.
z F—
w
Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory Programs of the Corps of D p
Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206 - 41260, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, U cA
Washington, D.C. p F-
2 W
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1997. Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma -to- 1-- H
Seattle Commuter Rail Project. Prepared for Adolfson Associates, Inc. and the Regional �- O
Transit Authority. October 30, 1997. j j Z
UN
P _
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, O }—
Seattle.
Jones & Stokes, Inc. 1996. City of Renton Wetland Inventory Update. Prepared for the City of
Renton. Seattle, WA.
City of Kent. 1993 Kent City Code. Adopted May 19, 1993.
City of Kent. 1996. Wetland Inventory. City of Kent Geographic Information System. Printed June
20, 1996.
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Biol. Rpt. 88(24). 244 p.
City of Renton. 1991. City of Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. Renton, Washington.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
r • Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
38
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
!'3F.dXgP 7T�:ti+t�?.SCC2!wSrsFSl1W4P:.
z
I�
r
J
F
City of Renton. 1992. Critical Areas Maps. Long Range Planning, Planning/Building Public Works,
Technical Services. Renton, Washington.
City of Renton. 1998. Title IV, City of Renton Building Regulations.
Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation with the National
Technical committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
City of Tukwila. 1990. Sensitive Areas Maps
City of Tukwila. 1997. Tukwila Municipal Code.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual. Publication #96 -94. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Olympia, Washington.
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wetlands Study and Mitigation Plan
City of Tukwila Department of Public Works
39
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
May 2001
....;�.tw .f ::.:. .� -::w. ..>_ s •_, ai.. �sL:W.=,:w:.t��'..... _
• ...:...: �;,. vs :ri...�::...��;a.:u.�XS�.�rl =• � � `P-
�— ...n..+ +..w.'sA. +:Lfi4�!.ws�'- .ib` -'r ai.. Y?i" •
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
[,
t •
Plant Species Observed within the South 180 St. Grade Separation Study Area
TREES
Common Name WIS
Scientific Name
Acer macrophyllum
Alnus rubra
Betula papiryfera
Malus fusca
Populus balsamifera
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Robinia pseudoacacia
Sorbus aucuparia
Thuja plicata
Scientific Name
Cornus stolonifera
Cytisus scoparius
Holodiscus discolor
Prunus spp.
Rubus discolor
Salix lasiandra
Salix sitchensis
Sambucus racemosa
Spiraea douglasii
Symphoricarpos albus
Scientific Name
Cirsium vulgare
Equisetum arvense
Galium aparine
Hypericum perforatum
Iris pseudacorus
Lotus corniculatus
Marah oreganus
Plantago major
Polygonum amphibium
Polygonum cuspidatum
Ranunculus repens
Solanum dulcamara
Tanacetum vulgare
Taraxacum off cinale
Veronica americana
big -leaf maple
red alder
paper birch
Pacific crabapple
black cottonwood
Douglas -fir
black locust
mountain ash
westem red cedar
SHRUBS
Common Name
red -osier dogwood
Scot's broom
ocean spray
Plum (ornamental)
Himalayan blackberry
Pacific willow
Sitka willow
red elderberry
Douglas' spiraea
snowberry
HERBS
Common Name
bull thistle
field horsetail
bedstraw
common St. Johns wort
yellow flag
birdsfoot- trefoil
bigroot
common plantain
water smartweed
Japanese knotweed
creeping buttercup
climbing nightshade
common tansy
dandelion
American brooklime
FACU
FAC
FAC*
FACW
FAC
FACU
FACU
NL
FAC
WIS
FACW
NL
NL
CULT
FACU
FACW+
FACW
FACU
FACW
FACU
WIS
FACU
FAC
FACU
NL
OBL
FAC
NL
FACU+
OBL
NI
FACW
FAC+
NI
FACU
OBL
r�f EFI
•
Scientific Name
Agropyron repens
Agrostis tenuis
Festuca arundinacea
Glyceria elata
Holcus lanatus
Juncus efusus
Phalaris arundinacea
Typha latifolia
Verbascum blattaria
GRASSES, RUSHES, AND SEDGES
Common Name
quackgrass
colonial bentgrass
tall fescue
tall mannagrass
common velvetgrass
soft rush
reed canarygrass
common cat -tail
moth mullein
WIS
FAC-
FAC
FAC-
FACW+
FAC
FACW
FACW
OBL
UPL
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological' adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs jC r
7 , 1. Se , S e Ir�..P'+t s 15 14C1W v 7. — I - Vat ui i ►£n L tc . OS L
2. I PI.Vil 1 - 1 .t; IX rf'ei - 8. 19D •t ,c. �1.Mr -, aY1+:7I1c6 ; m 06
�: 3. 9. (-i.rr..ca%� %.4 i,d"tt � + t 1C..
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines / •e 1 - 1 'ej•u VIA l?'( •e°' (4'14."
,
4•. G ,),•(ne �t�.: U fE1CCw 10.
1 5.. 11.
i ; 6. 12.
Z of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: /OD Other indicators:
I1
,•9 Soil ,
j Series and phase: W.M. d r n + :, :"['f On fn On hydric soils list? Yes ✓ ; No ,
Mottled: Yes ✓ ; No . Mottle color: /)t1/ $ ; Matrix color: lb ' `�/ S r[ C I D
1. Gleyed: Yes Other (X�r t No Oth indicators: • a t'rp5onp^ N S1 G1 - S I G l q ca- ' 6,1 "
e.�t
_ H ydric soils: Yes No Basis: �•1�2tv.�.,�v 1 v C�LtI`?'rnU ` Yfl.e I Y
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant Application Project
Name: et 0-1-, — Cu %. Number: Name: s IS `VA— g
State: . , County: 14.0 Legal Description: Township:23ti1 Range: 4
Date: .1- (l/p(1$ Plot No.: DP ft - I Section: 2f
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: : i; A.: ( ,t'�,�
Hydrology
Inundated: Yea • ; No V. Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils: Yes ✓ ; No Depth to saturated soil:
Other indicators:_ . 4 2.t.)1 0641 us. , buI{,e L'{—
Wetland hydrology: Yes ✓ J ; No V Basis: 501 f!)t'
Atypical situation: Yes ; No '
Normal Circumstances? Yes V No
Wetland Determination: Wetland 1--
Comments:
() �cti' >,�� .,
}[
C�. LA_ (
; Nonwetland
Determined by: t�F� .
6 11 ELL S
•
r 0-1 Sf' 'IO s of Eq C Q._
•
•
.:w.. -.� :«r:xa.,sv' ` t: L, t�.:.'. c. C. vtkiSd�ii= iiriNeSwh�'Sx.B"t�t' <t'` - . _`'�;tr• ^v.. .
r�-
!
•
t: -
. ;
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant ! Application Project
Name: 1,; fr 1 H: I ! e\ Number : Name: S / gb f �Jf
State: I _ A s County: k.I vi Legal Description: Township: 23iJ Range: Lf
Date: R-1I Lnl el S Plot No.: ) F ' 2 Section: 2�
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations vith an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
1 . 7. T a 4+.a. c.e 4-u rt'1 li k k yk'(. &it
2. 8 . � lA A . tOtrri C11':.� Nt—
3.. 9. U
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
4. S ly fi e rt r, "0. C t D t 11 S A C..0 10.
5. e7:4-1 n �: t C; (Gk r.: Y }I Ceti �.: f C- O 11.
6. 12.
Z of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: D . Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Ltu 1 tea .1n_
Soil
Series and phase:1A »,Pit ji1n On hydric soils list? Yes V ; No
Mottled: Yes ; No V . Mottle color: ; Matrix color: tf,;( 4
Cleyed: Yes No Other indicators:
Hydiic soils: Yes No ✓; Basis: •
fl
Hydrology
t
Inundated: Yes ; No Depth of standing water: .
r: Saturated soils: Yes ; No ✓, Depth to saturated soil: .
I Other indicators: - bR. 1 .
Wetland hydrology: Yes , No = " " ' . . Basis: 1)ft/� �f;, 7,4 (a L.. .
Atypical situation: Yes ; No ■ . J 6 ��
3
Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No `
Wetland Determination: Wetland ; Nonwetland
Comments:
Determined bv:' r- . t � ��
t:K A�+i • .'.1Y1._ ' _i&: '. v:s.y� ....S +:.ss:£r'L <in':,
1 '7
tit
r „c
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant Application Project
Name: Ci �i C�. i.t;? I G't �Gk Number: Name: 5 r&of s(
State: W County: k:h Legal Description: Township:23N Range: LfG
Dace: - q - 11t411 °! 3 Plot No.: 7)( . 3 - ) Section: PS
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species vith observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
1. 7. P k tL i LS Attl 'iA c� IAGUt1
2. -
€C) arrOLibtu.wl 0 6 L
3. 9. atA fek tn. n f-e I It -L 1 .5 �1L
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
4. rrn b4u.t.j fzcuvhr>;.A rACU 10.
5. R.A. L t5 AL; c eq- F t U 11.
6. COt YIDS S4010741 e v, �fl G`�U f 12: ptY.a 4n+w; Q1
Z of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: Inettee4eN.
Soil
Series and phase : LOttr-k: t r.!, t' (a St r !' On hydric soils list? Yes _ ; No
Mottled: Yes ; No ✓ . Mottle color: ; Matrix color: N 1 1 rkuti (6, - / g `f
Gleyed: Yes 6 ”' No Other indicators: So.`` J
Hydric soils: Yes 1- ---- No ; Basis: SA4-a. 4 A ct Fu, i .4.6
` 3 v
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No ' Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils: Yes ✓ ; No Depth to saturated soil: Sttf tice_
Other indicators: (01:M7, O -
v u ,
Wetland hydrology: Yes ✓ ; No Basis: Sci } ^.ti
Atypical situation: Yes ; No ✓
Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓ ; Nonwetland
Comments:
Determined by:- K c= 605
z
2 H •
) — W
O 0
N
cow
J
F-
U) Lt.
w
g Q
—0
�
Z
1--
F- 0
z
w
w
O • —
0 H
W w
2
F-- H
L" O
. • z.
W
U=
O ~
z
Comments:
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant 1- Application Project
Name: C L/,TvkwL l0. Number: Name: S /536 ' S4-. ■
State: kJ A County: l < nLegal Description: Township: 23/'J Range: 9
Date: -)tLvl h i$ Plot No.: D? - 13 -2. Section: ZS
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
1 . • i . q e q j 4 -
2 . . 8 . 12 ‘in 11t't t . ct ( umri. Art4 c.-ec 41 CIA-)
3. 9. aiSIOr,N VLO.c.:t -e- fit°
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
4•. 4-1 s Lts 5 CO f t us •L 10. 'ra,ttacctu v31 U u..lsame.
5. u1,ct l6LDrb( `t CV 11. pcyllwm /(Darn...
S of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: J= S Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No ✓. Basis: 14rti. erri.7.\,)
Soil RR 6.4
Series and phase: tt.)Mlti -o rge. Stib On hydric soils list? Yes r ; No
Mottled: Yes ; No Mottle color: ; Matrix color: IO YK `/13
•
Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: rr S '
Hydric soils: Yes No ✓ ; Basis: Mil rlibti I t4 01. Aka
a.
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No ✓ Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils: Yes ; No ✓ Depth to saturated soil:
Other indicators: Y
Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No ✓ . Basis:
Atypical situation: Yes ; No
Normal Circumstances? Yes No
Wetland Determination: Wetland
LA
Nonvetland
Determined by:- K F &r
Q •
_ 1 " .
W
J
00
W
W =
H
W
LL
co
=
w
O
w ~
w
U �
N
0 I-
WW
2
h-H
Li. O
.. Z
W
U =
O ~
Z
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
1. 7. p lActizt s fg
2. 8. €ciu.iSe4 - Lk. vn A VAC-
3. 9. MAYA L. c L JQ N-tt 5 An.
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
4•, 10.
5. 11.
6. 12.
x of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: 2 � 3 . Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes `— No • Basis: JnttecI
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant Application Project
Name : ��� t t Cf.. Number: Name: 5 (Se)
State: LA) tit County: Kni Legal Description: Township: 231.1 Range: 1Z'}E
Date: - 4111D1 6 1% Plot No.: D' G - 1 Section: 9,5
Soil
Series and phase: W ttyt.by' ' f'( . Saa On hydric soils list? Yes ✓; No .
Mottled: Yes ✓ ; No Mottle color: lo 1'ie 41�; Matrix color: /0'( "'/Z Q} !p'
Gleyed: Yes l'' No
.
indicators: �� 'IR. `� /�o OF 1�. `� 10Ya 4 j a ) Z "
Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No ; Basis: (kynh illi f
S 114D S i.) I Qa vr\
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No ' . Depth of standing eater:
Saturated soils: Yes ; No ✓ Depth to saturated soil: . );. UDhD
Other indicators: 100',1 e.e..:' ACen. (..ik-tl, (Pf i ; (U nrlx. ^�1n.v.A. Su{'�(6tt t,x� W
U
Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No `'� Basis:
Atypical situation: Yes ; No V . 1tJA { ( f 1.1,;1{. Ge)-„
Normal Circumstances? Yes ' No
Wetland Determination: Wetland 1— ; Nonwetland .
Comments:
Determined, b • k. �13
Z
W
Ce 00
t!) 0
LLI
Li! I,
N ti
WO
Q
=
W
Z =
W O
W
U O
co
0 —
O F--
W W
1- H
L I Z
tii
U=
O ~
Z
Soil
Series and phase: W ."-ITAt i : o . ; .Z' - I L) On hydric soils list? Yes 1 / No
9 'r
Mottled: Yea ; No ' Mottle color: ; Matrix color:, ID Yle Z 4o lSb /i
r Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators:
I
; Hydric soils: Yes No ✓ ; Basis: ►10 Y1/0t.1 fee .Ii) littyS
r =,
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applic t Application Project ,�,/'
Name: ( 12, `�(.!� �(`! �G� Number: Name: 6 / 6 T(A.
State: k A ' County: <i Legal Description: Township: 23A Range:
J
Date: �' t tot AI i Plot No.: T)P G -2. Section: 2('
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs ``
1. 7. 1411(11,1ls MLL'Oet lv111C20\ 'Te\c u)
2. 8 . tel U-i C.e. 4 -cL h'1 Itt, 5f uc2 .f f4Ci
3. 8. t-40l (A,44 (k. kA
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
4 • �UD 1) ( 51.01, U 10 .
5. 11.
6. 12.
x of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC:3 4. Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: I •yac ewtot
Determined by:. Kr &13
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No V Depth of standing eater:
Saturated soils: Yes ; No Depth to saturated soil:
Other indicators: Y1 ` it2
Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No P' Basis: d P V c c a e li , : ' B� , Coeos(oe5
✓ J
Atypical situation: Yes ; No
Normal Circumstances? Yes 1 No
Wetland Determination: Wetland ; Nonwetland t/
Comments:
V{.. •. - V�7 - 70 £J. L•7
3.
N � l : r +0T- + ,
State: yR`+ C ouuaty l :� R
Dates '7 a.) -9 D Plot No.
physiological adaptations with an
Indicator
Status
Species
rocs 1I rr-+oa.'Ium, aI.a...
Trees
2 .
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Application
!lumbar:
Legal Description:
V* station [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (S if
only 1 or 2 layers)J. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
asterisk.
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
6•r.�,tSJS ��SLC'l: '-. . t3Z MC-Li 10.
5. 11.
6. 12.
1 of species that are OBL. TAM, and /or TAC: . Other indicators:
Hydrophytie vegetation: Yes No Basis:
Soil
Series and phase:tr, 4 -1.e r' On hydric roils list? Yes ; No
Mottled: Ysr)C : No Mottle color:l2-1 4 ; Matrix color: IOW_' IA iL:?r tyi✓t_1: _
Cloyed: Yes K No Other indicators:
Hydr.ie soils: Yes No ; Basis:
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No . Depth of standing vater:
Saturated *oils: Tes ; 11o. Depth to saturated soil:"'[? . c-vt.#11;I L_
Other indicators:
Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No Basis:
Atypical situation: Yea ; No'
Normal Circumstances? Tes X No •
Wetland Dcternina'ftoa: Wetland
Comments:
OCT 5 '98 15:25
Kerbs
8, - � ,�1 -1 l
ii i; c+ngJr( { Jr t4.1,../r-1 3� Vr/o
9.
Species
Troject
Native
Township:
Section:
; Nonwetland
cVV
Indicator
Statue
Determined by: k:!Efi ) f'"'(r ' F
r .VG
206 721 3428 PAGE.002
s2,
• • 1
Applica Application Project
Name: � P / � ,,,. Nuabar : Howe
State:: County: 1 "� Legal Description: Township'
Ranges
Data: I n ') Plot No.: * 0 ._
section;
Veistation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)J. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adsptacions with an asterisk.
Indicator
Trees Herbs
1. 7.sv,s trT.lt 1 m- wR�l`.lsf:,
2. B.C.: �, ry z.l( = r'l se � -LA) -N
3. 9 . Pk F t -4S f 5..� ,� NA ( ' -� •; I 4() , f
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
0.5 c � • ( f4-C 10.
S. 11.
6. 12.
2 of species that ars OB'L. FAN, and /or IAC: Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes‘ ...... No . Basis:
Soil
1t 1. J1
Series and phame:(�.. .)0:0..M. On hydrae soils list? Yes ; No
Mottled: Yes ; No Mottle color: ; Matrix color:104: , 13
Cloyed: Yes No X. Other indicators:
Hydr.ic soils: Yes Ho basis:
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No,,K Depth of mending water:
Saturated soils: Yes ; lie. Depth to saturated sail:
Other indicators:
Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No . Basis:
Atypical situation: Yes ; No X.
Normal Circumstances? Y No
Wetland Determination: Wetland ; Namaland ✓
Comments:
OCT 5 '98 15:26
DATA.FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Species Status Species Status
Determined by: ial $ P- -
Indicator
1
• • ......
206 721 3428 PAGE.003
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
ECOSYSTEMS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Project
Prepared for
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW
Seattle, Washington 98107
and
Regional Transit Authority
1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, Washington 98104
Prepared by
Herrera. Environmental Consultants, Inc.
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 601
Seattle, Washington 98121
Telephone: 206/441
October 30, 1997
rom
r..
.pl 9I61. * .w+olreonn. doe
October 30, 1997
Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project— Ecosystems
Introduction
The purpose -of -this technical memorandum is to provide the results of natural resources site
investigations for a portion of the proposed Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail project. The
project, which is sponsored by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), would involve operation of
commuter rail service between Tacoma and downtown Seattle on approximately 40 miles of
existing Burlington Northern Rail Road (BNRR) track. Commuter rail trains would provide
service to stations in Seattle, Tukwila, Renton, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma.
The RTA is currently evaluating ten potential station sites for inclusion in the project.
This memorandum describes existing conditions and potential impacts on significant and
sensitive ecosystems, wetlands, and endangered species at,ten sites proposed for development of
commuter rail stations and park- and -ride facilities. Several additional project elements (station
sites and track improvements) are still being considered by the RTA for inclusion in this project.
and are not addressed in this memorandum. Following the RTA's issuance of a final project .'
description, these additional project elements will be analyzed in a future technical
memorandum. Potential mitigation measures will be included as part of the additional analysis
to be conducted after the project description is completed by the RTA. The findings of this and
future technical memoranda will be combined into a final ecosystems report document.
This report summarizes pertinent background information and presents the findings of site
reconnaissance. General site conditions, significant and sensitive ecosystems, wetlands, and
endangered species are described for each of the ten station sites. The findings presented in this
technical memorandum will be summarized in the NEPA Environmental Assessment for the
Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail project.
This technical memorandum draws on information presented in the Preliminary Assessment of
Ecosystems, Wetlands, and Endangered Species (Herrera 1994) that was prepared for the Central
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for its South Corridor Commuter Rail project. A total
of 30 station and park -and -ride sites as well as five track improvement areas were analyzed in the
1994 report. This memorandum provides an update of the previous work at nine of those sites
that were selected for inclusion in the Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail project. It also includes
the results of field investigations for a new station and park -and -ride lot at S. 180 Street in
Renton that was not analyzed in the 1994 study.
1 Herrera Environmental Consultants
z
mow
re 2
6
00
0
w=
F-
�
w 0
gQ
= • a
• w
z =
I- 0
w ~
O c o
O —
O I—
wW
u
Z
L o u U=
O ~
z
•
The methods used to identify existing conditions, sensitive areas, and threatened and endangered
species at the 10 proposed commuter rail station sites include a combination of site
reconnaissance and review of background information. Each site was visited to determine if
conditions have changed since previous studies for the South Corridor Commuter Rail project
were conducted in 1994 (Herrera 1994). Observed changes in site conditions are noted in the
station descriptions presented in this technical memorandum.
Because the 180 Street Station site in Renton had not been previously studied, it was evaluated
in more detail to determine the presence and exact boundaries of wetland areas that could affect
station layout and design. Wetland delineation field forms and the boundary survey map for this
site are included in Attachment A. Wetland delineations were conducted in accordance with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. COE 1987) as required for .
federal and local government permits.
Sources of background information used to describe existing environmental conditions at the
proposed station sites included National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program data, Washington Department of Natural
Resources Natural Heritage Program data, and maps of environmentally sensitive areas provided
by local jurisdictions (e.g., King County, Pierce County, and the cities of Renton, Tukwila,
Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma). Existing information on environmentally sensitive
areas and significant natural resources at the selected sites (e.g., threatened or endangered species
or priority habitats) is summarized in Table 1. Observations made during site reconnaissance,
together with available background information, were used to confirm the presence or absence of
sensitive areas and important natural resources at the selected sites.
•}f f/6NcMr+dennrwmdor
Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project — Ecosystems
Study Methods and Assumptions
October 30, 1997 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants
z
'~ w
o+2
6U
00
to
• LU
J =
t—
w 0
w <
-
=
t- w =
z �
Z O
U • co
O -
O H
w w
_
0
L I z
w
U=
F.
z
,
Table 1. Summary of impacts on ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, and wetlands resulting from construction and operation
of the proposed Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail project.
Station
Longacres Station
180 Street Station
North Kent Station
Auburn Station
Sumner Station
Puyallup Station
Tacoma Amtrak Station
Notes
.r!
ItMethatemithrommit
October 30, 1997
. :v
Ecologically Endangered
Sensitive Areas Species
King Street Station None None
Georgetown Station None None
Wetlands
Wetlands
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Approximate
Wetland Size
NA
NA
Boeing Access Road Station Wetlands None Approximately 1 to 4 acres, depending on
station location
6 acres
5.25 acres
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
Z
H W
6
J U
fn W
W =
CD
Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project– Ecosystems
LL. Q
Z =
o
Z 1.-
11J W
UCa
to
None p
None U
50 feet
Type 2 Will be evaluated in Tight rail — Z
W
U=
O ~
Z
Wetland
Buffer
NA
NA
50 feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
This table will be updated in the final technical memorandum to reflect additional site information still be developed by the RTA.
NA Not applicable.
Wetlands
Classification
NA
NA
Type 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Impacts from
Consttuction and Operation
EIS
None
None
None
None
None
None
Herrera Environmental Cnn.cr,ltantc
•
. ! wetland vegetation occurs along the southern edge of this forested wetland that is comprised of
reed canarygrass and scattered Oregon ash trees.
Wetland A in the southwest corner of the site is an isolated scrub /shrub wetland that is confined
to a swale paralleling the BNRR tracks. The dominant vegetation in this wetland includes
Pacific willow, red -osier dogwood, hardhack, and reed canarygrass. It is being invaded by
Himalayan blackberries. Surface water runoff collects in this swale and is contained by the steep
banks for South 180th Street and the railroad tracks.
A large blackberry thicket dominates the south central portion of the site between wetlands A and
B. Site topography and observed soil characteristics suggest that fill material was placed where
the Himalayan blackberry thicket exists, separating Wetland A from the larger wetland B
complex. It appears that a house with ornamental plants used to occupy this fill area as
evidenced by the presence of cherry trees, English ivy, red elderberry, and blackberries.
A forested wetland (wetland C) to the east of the existing access road likely was also connected
to the larger wetland B system before the access road was built. A mature row of poplar trees
along the east side of the access road appears to be approximately 50- to 75 -years old, indicating
that these wetlands have been functioning as separate systems for a long time.
y/ 91114fthounNrcorrrsu/or
October 30, 1997 •
15 Herrera Environmental Consultants
K .tiVI,Jyrertl.ft ry' tl in. r f.1 .. rVg: A rit•mor mot 1
z
a•
= z
6
~ w
—I
00
CD Ca
U) L11
J H
w • 0
2�
u..
CO
= a
F w
Z
I—
w
O co
O I-
w w
1— p
L I O
w z
0 '
z
v4g1. - 40;04 1 7!
:•
iuq}Y.tyfLL Nw 1 , 1,410.11.111.71
Vwr.2luiWC+�,
Figure 7. 180th Street Station location. ,
i■ .717779
180TH
GLACIER
182ND
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
6
28TH
180th Street
Station
Source: Thomas Bros. Maps 1996
HERRERA
ENVIRCAMENTAL
coVSUUANIs
z
W
U
U O
N D
J' • _
W
LL Q
a
z
W O til
D
0 c
oI-
WW
1- �
z
w
=
0
z
•
oa
�.t
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Because wetland B is a large forested and open water wetland complex that extends offsite to the
north, it provides excellent habitat for numerous small birds, mammals, and amphibians. Two
great blue heron rookeries are identified within 1.5 to 2 miles of the site and it is likely that these
large wading birds use the more northerly parts of this wetland system where shallow water and
adjacent shrub cover provides habitat for the heron's favored prey of frogs, small fish, mice and
aquatic inse &s. Wetlands A and C are of lesser quality for wildlife habitat because of their
smaller site
The 180 Street station site is located in close proximity to Springbrook Creek, a tributary to the
Black River and part of the Green River drainage. The creek is located immediately to the east of
the station site in a steep - banked channel that meanders in a northerly direction to its confluence
with the Black River. Springbrook Creek is identified by the Priority Habitats and Species map
(WDFW 1994) as providing important fish habitat for anadromous fish runs. The Catalog of
Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization (WDF 1975) identifies Springbrook Creek as
habitat for Coho salmon. The station is also within 1,500 feet of the Green River, which is also
important'anadromous fish habitat and supports listed resident fish species.
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impacts to natural resources at the 180 Street Station will be analyzed in a future technical
memorandum when the final station layout is completed.
Y}I IIINI•cfafttonaltcvnornioe
October 30, 1997
Tacoma - to - Seattle Commuter Rail Project Ecosystems
18 Herrera Environmental Consultants
�..., , :,,..,, . wa al..y"' = "citsiuis %::i*«'L::::
z
.
= z
w
6 U
00
co
J • =
w • O
�
� a
= • w
_
z �
F— O
z t—
ill
� o
O • -
O H
w w .
1-
LL.- O.
u. z
U=
0
z
References
Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project— Ecosystems
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1994. Preliminary Assessment of Ecosystems, Wetlands
and Endangered Species. Regional Transit Authority South Corridor Commuter Rail. August
1994.
U.S. COE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1,
Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
USFWS. 1987. National wetland inventory map for South Seattle Washington quadrangle.
USFWS. 1988. National wetland inventory map for Renton, Washington quadrangle.
Watershed Dynamics. 1996. Wetland delineation map for Zelman Properties Company. Prepared
by Watershed Dynamics and Barghausen Consulting Engineers, October 15, 1996.
WDF. 1975. A catalogue of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound.
Washington Department of Fisheries, November 1975.
WDFW. 1994. Priority habitats and species and Natural Heritage wildlife data map for Renton,
Washington quadrangle. Washington Department of Wildlife, Habitat Division, Olympia, WA.
ryl 9 16AcrMawahronmdoc
October 30, 1997
33 Herrera Environmental Consultants
z
Z .
00
co 0
W =
J1_-
NLL
w
LL Q
CO
=
w
z �.
�— 0
w ~
0
OS
0 F—
LU uL
F— H
.. z
w
U'=
0
z
.■
7 T7,3
4 k•-■••••-jk ,
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
Field Investigator(s): V G-- KE Date: '— 30 — `1 7
Project/Site: RT A s- 'kri ° rrti 18 0 rk State: t..-111- County: 4
Applicant/Owner:. G' fw of Ike-vs 4-0 L, Plant Community #flame: j —
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes >< No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X (if yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Dominant Stratum
hw(.dr ct PrC1n/ 0 {+
Tekk. Q C pA"U. v% , /ta. ∎ . N - C7 r+
Ruiz' d is r,of or FA-GU. 10 r) S
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 5D YO
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: R. �.
e( f...r. c„
ru rA:s tic .Lte ae..,
.s �trb (et ! 61d Sp 'Att'1 L ' $ (4Qr,,IkL.c ('
fl..twSp tA.• `
y
SOILS II
Map Unit Name (Series/phase): J d-0 C111^\/ , ( s 1 // 4 — f 0 cr-vv.. Oxidized Rhizospheres:
Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions:
Mottles: Gleyed or low - chroma colors: > Sulfidic odor:
Matrix and Mottle Color:
0 —r( , 0 `,'(2 - ;/2 -,-...._ -_
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No k.
Rationale: /n vJ (.1/ .► .e-� n , -/ • 0 Pi: O ?
HYDROLOGY
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Dominant Stratum
r ► -�--' ti„r ri Q / '/i - .i 7,
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
�o eS tt,4 j 0± E ±P n.
z
�Z
'cc W
6
J
00
W�
W
Q .
tn�
=
I- I
Z �
I-
W
D o
ON
O H
WW
2
HF
�Z
U =
O~
z
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
• I
Field Investigator(s): V Gr K Fi
Project/Site: -1' 51 r, e v, 1 R 0
Applicant/Owner :. C e,.n ±
Date: q 3 o —� 7
State: WJ County: 44 1
Plant Community #/Name: S P- V I Z. A a I.. C.
Do normal environmentalconditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation soils; and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No >< (if yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species jndicator Dominant , tratum
Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions:
Mottles: J o ye— i `I Gleyed or low - chroma colors: x Sulfidic odor:
- -Matrix and Mottle Color:
0 -4, " in y 3/2- sill-- wt 4 -t... IAA-al-fief;
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes k No
Rationale: nw► CAA-1/4 t. ta-t-f-(ova c.
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks: �G
Drift lines: Sediment deposits: Drainage patterns: >
Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: >f Local Soil Survey data:
Oxidized root channels: Other indicators:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: ► rv. . 9 vl k 1 ✓►, ,v,. cLt 17 c `•'-
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes >< No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
,
•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
Field Investigator(s): 06- 4G E-
Project/Site• R Tfr I F t? HA. S
Applicant/Owner : l,, } of Q ev...to v\
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation soils, /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Specie5 Indicator Dominant Stratum m
X frkx%,nks kid-1401i R FAC W 6 5 Y
A -1,•,A , r,t.6 F -C /5 T
k r_.,vv .. s1 -nines eA. FA Of) g o - S
B.,,l,,.z A,Stalo( tf C', 1 5 S
ffp,r'dra tiI,r(1I FjGW 5 5
x p l,+.e,s 4,, {:PrC W 70 J-
Q.ru 4 .,j11, s , jf21 f -(►/0 1 0 (
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 10 0 c
Is the hydrophytis vegetation criterion met? Yes ( No
Rationale: WI w,%*Wn,,f 4oecAe.5 w Quc.6_ .thred a kyda
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series/phase):
Histosol:
Mottles :. }e2- yf /
Matrix and Mottle Color:
0- ' I o)'R
Lf /I s, 1+ w, wt:2*1es
Date: c 1 - 30 7
State: 1A/0 County. K �i
Plant Community #blame: 5p - - 3
No
No
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Dominant Stratum
(4 00d t o %/ (4 e m i l 1 occ Oxidized Rhizospheres:
Histic epipedon: Concretions:
Gleyed or low- chroma colors: Sulfidic odor:
(if no, explain on back)
(if yes, explain on back)
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? • Yes 4 No
Rationale: to an\ d tn.n t- ' /r.ti.r
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks:
Drift lines: Sediment deposits: Drainage patterns:
Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: X Local Soil Survey data:
Oxidized root channels: Other indicators:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes }G. No
Rationale: ' I . . 1 n 'tLr 5 e.k So P.
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes x No
Rationale for jurisdictional deci ion:
a-U rllo. o 3
Ar I " •
z
_ 1-
J - z
W
6
00
w =
(/)
w
to d
W
Z
Z
LIJ w
O • -
O I—
w W
L I O
tii
O ~
z
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
Field Investigators): LX- E Date �` 3
Project/Site: Investigator): 5 +�. � - iova ovt 1 $ O Sf State: WW County. K
Applicant/Owner :. G �4 Re�toh Plant Community #/Name: S 'P 9 l �d 8
Do normal environmental- conditions exist at the plant community? Yes x No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X (if yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
so p a-rfdr��
Dominant Stratum
a
Dominant Plar l Specie Indicator
K ?o lo -5 t
i �.r. Fire-
Fr,,?ctinv.s 41 -GI%GL
X G°rh t&S 4-b fv,L PAC t J 0
R .1�u cL 5(...0 to r &Pr LA 0 _s
X Fk.ata.rt f;ACW O 1-I-
D I ee v te" - Fnrw•enet FA 3 O H
Egt I s)tw -r arvette F rC- (0 r4
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC /d to /a
Is the hydrophyt vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: �G�- �.4 r rn a.vt:f Veer. s t •_/". 5 r -,det a
SOILS
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
low f -moo vK. G .wt wt.o � K -
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Dominant Stratum
Map Unit Name (Series/phase): Wp ortA vt. U i ( le s* (0 a l4 \ Oxidized Rhizospheres:
Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions:
Mottles: 10 `/2 L !/ ( Gleyed or low- chroma colors: X Sulfidic odor:
" "Matrix and Mottle Color:
n--14 7. 5 y g, 3/ 5/// {. /r 14, -fit 5
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No sZ Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches Water marks:
Drift lines: X Sediment deposits: x Drainage patterns: X
Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: > Local Soil Survey data:
Oxidized root channels: Other indicators:
List othpr field evidence of surface inundation or soil atura ion: .L
Yes '5{ No
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
Rational for jurisdictio,¢al decision:
eel
moo
�'s
4,illLL 1 9 9 . JIM ifs&
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
Field Investigator(s): (7 Date: f 30 -_ cf 7
Project/Site: R.. & 5i - kfir o Lek 1$ O.4-4. 5 State: 0 County: < r ‘1"5 Applicant/Owner :. Ct+' r) P.i� ,•' Plant Community #/Name: S P-- etAA
Do normal environmjtai conditions exist at the plant community? • Yes No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (if yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spe jes d' at 2 a $trat rn
Fef•A itou5 1 all 1( rAc
Rvbu5 dt5-- O(o FPtGlit aS'r)
R.1j�u 4 i „ /' /11t*.1f EIN-c u-i- 25 5
x Pkttia up‘ . Ear tA/ Ss H
S nu.•1 it4aCeVeft. A•G'1 0 _
( rstut^n AA-NJ e.Ase FPO.A.+ .s 44
Is the wetland
Rationale:
f--1A ” I OYR 5/1
HYDROLOGY
GI 1 iLI t '4't... rA. H .' ( s
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional jlecision:
Me•. hh 1 sot / ��.
%
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Dominant Stratum
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 50 7
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No /
Rationale: Rear( r.rs.+■RXt� a �s dnw,.. c.-1-r� Q�1 �,Q�����v _61et,A. 4 �Y ✓��° S c t Pt can�t -
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series/phase): 1A)4 o 14 Vt 1I L s t 11 (o u vN Oxidized Rhizospheres:
Histosol: Histic epipedon: Concretions:
Mottles: 10Y R. U/ ( Gleyed or low - chroma colors: >-- Sulfidic odor:
Matrix and Mottle Color:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X. No
Rationale:
v o" G- ate. cl• W (-1 44 t
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No >. Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators: Inundated: Saturated in upper 12 inches: Water marks:
Drift lines: Sediment deposits:
Secondary Indicators: Waterstained leaves: Local Soil Survey data:
Oxidized root channels: • Other indicators:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturat'•n:
ydrology criterion m t? Yes No
vd S eGc o h
Drainage patterns:
.... �. _ .
z
W
�
00
LU
ff1 U_
W O
u_ ?
N d
= W
Z
Z0
W
U
u )
oI-
W W
iti
0
O ~
z
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3
3 pts
Flood/ Storm
Water Control
points 9
(max 15)
X
—
X_
—
X_
size < 5 acres
riverine or lakeshore wetland
<10% forested cover
unconstrained outlet
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
—
—
—
—
size 5 -10 acres
mid- sloped wetland
10 -30% forested cover
semi - constrained
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
X—
—
X—
—
size > 10 acres
depressions,
> 30 % forested cover
culvert/bermed outlet
location in upper 1/3 of
the drainage
Base Flow/
Ground Water
Support
points: 11
(max 15)
X
—
X_
—
—
size < 5 acres
riverine or Lakeshore wetland
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
temporarily flooded or saturated
no flow - sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
—
—
_
—
size 5 -10 acres
mid- sloped wetland
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
seasonally or semi-
permanently flooded
or saturated
low flow - sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
X—
—
X_
X_
size > 10 acres
depressions,
located in upper 1/3 of
the drainage
permanently flooded or
saturated, or
intermittently exposed
high flow- sensitive
populations contiguous
with site in highly
permeable strata
Erosion/
Shoreline
Protection
points: N/A
(max 9)
—
—
—
sparse grass/herbs or no veg
along OHWM
wetland extends < 30 m from
OHWM
highly developed shoreline or
subcatchment
—
—
—
sparse wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends 30 -60
m from OHWM
moderately developed
shoreline or
subcatchment
—
—
—
dense wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends >200
m from OHWM
undeveloped shoreline
or subcatchment
Water Quality
Improvement
points: 11
(max 12)
—
—
—
rapid flow through site
< 50% veg cover
upstream in basin from wetland
is undeveloped
holds < 25% overland runoff
X—
—
moderate flow through
50-80% cover
#50% of basin
upstream from
wetland is developed
holds 25 -50%
overland runoff
X
—
X_
X_
slow flow through site
> 80% veg cover
> 50% of basin
upstream from wetland
is developed
holds > 50% overland
runoff
•
Wetland # A
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - quantitative Performance Assessment
Location: Section 36 Township 23N Range 4E
N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available
Draft Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Staff
C -2
KF
Date 3/17/99
Appendix C
April 1999
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3
3 pts
Natural
Biological
Support
points: 25
(max 36)
X_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X_
—
X_
—
size < 5 acres
ag land, low veg structure
seasonal surface water
one habitat type
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
low plant diversity (< 6 species)
> 50% invasive species
low primary productivity
low organic accumulation
low organic export
few habitat features
buffers very disturbed
isolated from upland habitats
—
X—
—
—
X_
—
X_
X—
—
—
_
X—
size 5 -10 acres
2 level veg
permanent surface water
two habitat types
PAB POW PEM PSS
PFO EST
moderate plant diversity
(7 -15 species)
10 to 50% invasive
moderate primary
moderate organic
moderate organic export
some habitat features
buffers slightly disturbed
partially connected to
—
—
X_
X_
—
X—
—
—
—
X—
—
—
size > 10 acres
high veg structure
open water pools
3 3 habitat types
PAB POW PEM
PSS PFO EST
high plant diversity
( >15 species)
< 10% invasive
high primary
high organic
high organic export
many habitat features
buffers not disturbed
well connected to
Overall
Habitat
Functions
points: 4
(max 9)
X_
_
X_
size < 5 acres
low habitat diversity
low sanctuary or refuge
—
X—
_
size 5 -10 acres
moderate habitat
moderate sanctuary or
—
—
_
size > 10 acres
high habitat diversity
high sanctuary or
Specific
Habitat
Functions
points: 11
(max 12)
—
—
N/A
—
—
low invertebrate habitat
low amphibian habitat
low fish habitat
low mammal habitat
low bird habitat
—
—
—
X—
—
moderate invertebrate
moderate amphibian
moderate fish habitat
moderate mammal
moderate bird habitat
X—
X
—
—
X_
high invertebrate
high amphibian
high fish habitat
high mammal habitat
high bird habitat
CulturaU
Socioeco-
nomic
points: 14
(max 21)
—
—
X_
X_
—
X_
—
low educational opportunities
low aesthetic value
lacks commercial fisheries,
agriculture, renewable resources
lacks historical or archeological
resources
lacks passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned
not near open space
X_
—
—
—
—
—
—
moderate educational
opportunities
moderate aesthetic value
moderate commercial
fisheries, agriculture,
renewable resources
historical or
archeological site
some passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned, some
public access
some connection to open
—
X—
—
—
X_
—
X—
high educational
opportunities
high aesthetic value
high commercial
fisheries, agriculture,
renewable resources
important historical
or archeological site
many passive and
active recreational
opportunities
unrestricted public
access
directly connected to
•
Notes:
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - quantitative Performance Assessment
Draft Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
C -3
Appendix C
April 1999
2'F?s"1setrr
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3
3 pts
Flood/ Storm
Water Control
points: 9
(max IS)
X
X_
_
X_
size < 5 acres
riverine or Lakeshore wetland
<10% forested cover
unconstrained outlet
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
_
_
_
size 5 -10 acres
mid- sloped wetland
10 -30% forested cover
semi - constrained
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
X_
X_
_
size > 10 acres
depressions,
> 30 % forested cover
culvert/bermed outlet
location in upper 1/3
of the drainage
Base Flow/
Ground Water
Support
points: 9
(max 15)
X
_
X_
X_
—
size < 5 acres
riverine or Lakeshore wetland
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
temporarily flooded or saturated
no flow- sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
_
_
_
—
size 5 -10 acres
mid - sloped wetland
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
seasonally or semi-
permanently flooded
or saturated
low flow - sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
X_
_
_
X_
size > 10 acres
depressions,
located in upper 1/3 of
the drainage
permanently flooded
or saturated, or
intermittently exposed
high flow- sensitive
populations
contiguous with site in
highly permeable
strata
Erosion/
Shoreline
Protection
points: N/A
(max 6)
—
N/A
_
sparse grass/herbs or no veg
along OHWM
wetland extends <30 m from
OHWM
highly developed shoreline or
subcatchment
—
_
_
sparse wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends 30 -60
m from OHWM
moderately developed
shoreline or
subcatchment
_
_
_
dense wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends >200
m from OHWM
undeveloped shoreline
or subcatchment
Water Quality
Improvement
points: 9
(max 12)
_
_
X_
rapid flow throueh site
< 50% veg cover
upstream in basin from wetland
is undeveloped
holds < 25% overland runoff
X
_
_
moderate flow through
50 -80% cover
#50% of basin
upstream from
wetland is developed
holds 25 -50%
overland runoff
X_
X_
—
slow flow throueh site
> 80% veg cover
> 50% of basin
upstream from
wetland is developed
holds > 50% overland
runoff
Wetland # C
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi- quantitative Performance Assessment
Staff
Location: Section 36 Township 23N Range 4E
N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available
Draft Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
C -4
KF
Date 3/17/99
Appendix C
April 1999
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3 3 pts
Natural
Biological
Support
points: 12
(max 36)
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
X__
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
size < 5 acres
ag land, low veg structure
seasonal surface water
one habitat type
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
low plant diversity (< 6 species)
> 50% invasive species
low primary productivity
low organic accumulation
low organic export
few habitat features
buffers very disturbed
isolated from upland habitats
_
_
_
—
_
_
_
_
_
—
_
_
size 5 -10 acres
2 level veg
permanent surface water
two habitat types
PAB POW PEM PSS
PFO EST
moderate plant diversity
(7 -15 species)
10 to 50% invasive
moderate primary
moderate organic
moderate organic export
some habitat features
buffers slightly disturbed
partially connected to
_ size > 10 acres
_ high veg structure
open water pools
_ 3 3 habitat types
PAB POW PEM
PSS PFO EST
_ high plant diversity
( >15 species)
_ < 10% invasive
_ high primary
_ high organic
_ high organic export
— many habitat
_ buffers not
_ well connected to
Overall
Habitat
Functions
points: 3
(max 9)
X_
X_
x_
size < 5 acres
low habitat diversity
low sanctuary or refuge
—
_
_
size 5 -10 acres
moderate habitat
moderate sanctuary or
— size > 10 acres
_ high habitat
_ high sanctuary or
Specific
Habitat
Functions
points: 4
(max 12)
X_
X_
N/A
X_
X_
low invertebrate habitat
low amphibian habitat
low fish habitat
low mammal habita
low bird habitat
—
—
—
—
—
moderate invertebrate
moderate amphibian
moderate fish habitat
moderate mammal
moderate bird habitat
— high invertebrate
_ high amphibian
_ high fish habitat
_ high mammal
— high bird habitat
Cultural/
Socioeco-
nomic
points: 8
(max 21)
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
_
low educational opportunities
low aesthetic value
lacks commercial fisheries,
agriculture, renewable resources
lacks historical or archeological
resources
lacks passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned
not near open space
—
—
_
_
_
_
X
moderate educational
opportunities
moderate aesthetic value
moderate commercial
fisheries, agriculture,
renewable resources
historical or
archeological site
some passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned, some
public access
some connection to open
— high educational
opportunities
— high aesthetic value
_ high commercial
fisheries,
agriculture,
renewable
resources
— important historical
or archeological
site
_ many passive and
active recreational
opportunities
_ unrestricted public
access
_ directly connected
:!r
1
Notes:
1• '
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - quantitative Performance Assessment
Draft Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation C -5
Appendix C
April 1999
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
}
Job No. A00084
South 180th Street Grade Separation
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JAN :1. 2 ZO01
PERMIT CENTER
Final Wetlands Study
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
Submitted by
BERGER /ARAM
E N G I N E E R S I N C.
December 2000
v "w`s:::r'ayn'i:£v'1 :;;ssi�Tw1:•.:rxtxtitiA�"; s,i • :Yrr;eLd :its,FLika C4?a§XA tjt tikcWi 7n lee -.
FINAL WETLANDS STUDY
South 180th Street Grade Separation
•
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
December 2000
Submitted by
BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc.
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300
Federal Way, Washington 98003 -2600
Job No. A00084
FINAL WETLANDS STUDY
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
z
--,
, Z
w
ce 2
SECTION PAGE 6 =
.,, -i 0
1.0 Introduction 1 0 0
u) 0
co LU
2.0 Site Description 1 w z
- 1 cn LL
3.0 Project Development 4 u i 0
2 ?-
3.1 Preferred Grade Separation Design Alternative 4
u. ‹
co D
I
4.0 Methodology 4 a
1 ._ w
1
z i-
■ 4.1 Wetland Definition 4 . 0
4.2 Wetland Delineation Requirements 4 z i-
L1.1 al
4.3 Review of Existing Information 6 2 D
--,,
D CI
0
5.0 Wetland Investigation and Determination 15 0 P-
O 1-
w tu
5.1 Wetland A 15 i 0
5.2 Wetland B 17 r=
---
5.3 Wetland C 17 z
5.4 Wetland D 18 di
o (1)
5.5 Herrera Wetland A 19 r- 1
-j 1-
5.6 Herrera Wetland B 20 0
z
6.0 Wetland Impacts 20
7.0 Wetland Functions and Values 22
8.0 Regulatory Framework 26
8.1 Wetland Regulation and Classification 26
8.2 City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations 26
9.0 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 28
10.0 Wetland Mitigation Alternatives Analysis
29
10.1 Wetland Creation and Restoration Site Selection Criteria 29
10.2 Potential Wetland Creation Site Alternatives
29
11.0 Conceptual Wetland Creation Planting Plan 34
12.0 Limitations 34
13.0 References 34
-
" "" ; 4.1,1441,311k,
Final Wildlife Study BERGER/ABAM A00084
South 180th Street Grade Separation ii December 2000
FIGURES
FINAL WETLANDS STUDY
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Project Study Area
Figure 3 — National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 4 — City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Map
Figure 5 — City•of Renton Wetland Inventory
Figure 6 — City of Kent Wetland Inventory
Figure 7 — Commuter Rail Project Wetlands
Figure 8 — King County Soil Survey
Figure 9 — Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor
Figure 10 — Wetland Impacts
Figure 11— Herrera Wetlands Mitigation Site
Figure 12 — Mill Creek Upland Wetland Mitigation Site
Figure 13 — City of Tukwila Wetland WL12
TABLES
Table 1— Wetland Indicator Status
Table 2 — City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Wetlands Rating System
Table 3 — City of Renton Building Regulations Wetland Rating System
Table 4 — City of Kent Wetlands Management Code Wetlands Rating System
APPENDIXES
Appendix A — List of Plant Species Found in the Project Area
Appendix B — Study Area Wetland Data Forms
Appendix C — Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - Quantitative Performance Assessment Forms
Appendix D — Addendum to Final Wetlands Study
a<:::x�i�rawlry ' � ::a.i.vt�:atiu :.r ; lid; r; , s:.i:tia•�cr:r:: , a�r:,'ka�n�: 7 ^ +• i +2YciYiYi3'ri�'s':S��j� � wstl� 'ti�S2:i.:'i:rie %i:u
Final Wildlife Study BERGERIABAM A00084
South 180th Street Grade Separation
iii December 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of' a wetland delineation, impacts analysis, and mitigation concepts
study performed by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. (BERGER /ABAM) for the South 180th Street
Grade Separation project. The project is located at the intersection of the northwest corner of Kent,
the southwest corner of Renton, and the eastern boundary of Tukwila, Washington, in the vicinity of
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks (in Township
23N, Range 4E, north half of Section 36). A vicinity map is provided as Figure 1. Along South 180th
Street, the study area extends 200 feet north and south of the roadway from 72nd Avenue South on
the west side to 80th Avenue South on the east side. Along the BNSF and UPRR tracks, the study
area extends 1,000 feet north and south of the tracks and within 100 feet of the railroad right -of -way.
A map of the study area is provided as Figure 2.
In compliance with federal and local wetland regulations for Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, BERGER/
ABAM completed this study in order to determine the presence, extent, and characteristics of
wetlands in the study area. In addition, BERGER/ABAM has completed an impacts analysis and
provided preliminary conceptual mitigation scenarios in order to mitigate for unavoidable filling and
disturbance of wetlands, wetland buffers, and riparian buffer areas within the study area.
A wildlife study and stream study have been prepared for the South 180th Street Grade Separation
project under separate cover, entitled South 180th Street Grade Separation Project Wildlife Study
( BERGER/ABAM, 2000) and South 180th Street Grade Separation Project Stream Study.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Land uses within the project study area include a mix of commercial, office park, and light industrial
uses. Other land uses on the north side of South 180th Street include an undeveloped property
located immediately east of the BNSF right -of -way; and the proposed Oaksdale Business Campus
site east of the undeveloped property and extending to 80th Avenue South, which has been cleared
and is currently undergoing construction. During field investigations, construction was underway on
the south side of the roadway on the Creekside Storage Park, a public storage site immediately east
of the BNSF railroad tracks. The Interurban Trail, Puget Sound Energy power lines, fiber optic
cable, and a gas line cross the project study area.
Springbrook Creek flows from northeast in the eastern portion of the project study area. Mill Creek
flows northeast under a bridge over the BNSF railroad tracks to a confluence with Springbrook
Creek in the southeastern portion of the site (see Figure 2). The project study area is generally flat,
with elevated grades for the roadway and the railroad tracks.
Vegetation within the project study area includes the following.
• Scrub -shrub wetland areas dominated by willows and open water between the BNSF and UPRR
tracks and between the UPRR tracks and the Interurban Trail, on the northern side of the
roadway
• Blackberry thickets along the Interurban Trail, along both sides of the roadway, and in the
southern half of the undeveloped site on the northern side of the roadway, adjacent to the BNSF
railroad tracks
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
1
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
1
G■I
North
Sea-Tac
International
Airport
S 212th
Kent
167
Project
Area
1167
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998
Vicinity Map
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 1
• - " , ;; , 4 - '4.1,...1',..::,•••*;-A "4.6.1te :414:AO: La '
Project Area
.....
__.
vi,
_..... ., '
..
„fit
/� MT
MEI : I • &AIM
•10._ • , 1 .rj
LI IrPrriir os1
■ISAMM :'AMORI
•.•
•
•
l
r
sow
i
Subs 1 t
t. 1 G�l�ill
I II
II
All
Not to Scale
4d
North
Source:
U.S.G.S. Renton, Washington Quadrangle, 1994
Project Study Area
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 2
'4 ^�.' i' Lt"..' A' �c"-. �iJ�yif?:! t' M8S' fsY+.,. rxryrrl? P+ P. S+ �q* �Tp!. �a! t:{' tor.. m;:., ayn .4 , rF't... , w..:,_..,w _..'- �?s�»�y,�- .••..+- +.:rw�.p: y� :: :wY'. ^'.r , �.r,+:r, "'av�n»-- •rn . . .w.�vt.e,...v;..d,T. r. .. r.,
• Weed and reed - canary grass- dominated areas on the south side of the roadway between the
BNSF and UPRR tracks
• A small forested area dominated by bigleaf maple within the northwestern portion of the
remediation site; and a small forested area with bigleaf maple and locust south of the public
storage site
H A willow- dominated corridor adjacent to Springbrook Creek on both sides of the roadway ce 2
A list of the plant species found within the project study area is shown in Appendix A. U O
U) ❑
3.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Preferred Grade Separation Design Alternative
uj 0
The proposed roadway will consist of four 11 -foot through lanes, two in each direction, with a 12 -foot
center lane for the length of the project. This center lane will serve as a turning lane at the = C�
beginning and end of the alignment. As the roadway passes under the tracks, the piers supporting F— 2
the new bridges will be located in the center lane. The center piers will be drilled shafts Z � -
approximately 4 inches in diameter. To accommodate bicyclists, a 4 -foot shoulder will be constructed Z O
along both sides of the road. A 6 -foot concrete sidewalk will extend for the length of the project on j
both sides. Due to significant change in grade along the corridor, extensive reconstruction of private ❑
access driveways is required on both sides of the tracks. 0 cn
❑ 1—
The project will add approximately 0.5 acre of new impervious surface to the site. Stormwater runoff = w
will be collected by catch basins at the gutter on both sides of the roadway. A 12 -inch mainline will F - v —
convey the flow through an underground pump station to a new stormwater facility located 50 feet Z
north of South 180th Street and east of the tracks for water quality and water quantity control. w
Discharges from the new facility will be discharged into a detention pond consisting of two cells
separated by a berm, then to Springbrook Creek. An emergency overflow was provided in the p (-
detention pond to discharge 100 -year flow for developed condition. Z
4.0 .METHODOLOGY
4.1 Wetland Definition
Wetlands are formally defined as "... those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Federal Register, 1980,
1982).
4.2 Wetland Delineation Requirements
The wetland delineation was conducted using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) (Corps manual) as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. In February 1997, the Washington State
legislature adopted the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
manual) and require its use by local jurisdictions. This new manual is consistent with, although not
identical to, the Corps manual.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
4
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
_las;•: ..e;:.. ..., ;•Kara k6u,rda ,u +...ra.u. <,n,t >..c uY.x+.. y ;a
��
.:Wetland Indicator
Status
Description
. Estimated Probability of ...
Being Found in a ,
Wetland'
OBL
Obligate: species that almost always occur in
>99%
wetlands under natural conditions.
FACW
Facultative Wet: species that usually occur in
67% > 99 %
wetlands but are occasionally found in
nonwetlands.
FAC
Facultative: species that are equally likely to
34% > 66%
occur in wetlands or nonwetlands.
FACU
Facultative Upland: species that usually occur
1% > 33%
in nonwetlands but are occasionally found in
wetlands.
UPL
Obligate Upland: species that almost always
< 1%
occur in nonwetlands under normal
conditions.
NL
Not Listed: species that are not listed and are
presumed to be upland species.
NI
No Indicator Status: species that have not yet
been evaluated.
According to both manuals, an area must exhibit indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and wetland hydrology to be considered a wetland. These criteria are mandatory and must all be
met for an area to be identified as wetland, except under circumstances when a wetland is considered
a disturbed area or problem wetland. These criteria are discussed below.
•
-1
Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that
is periodically deficient in oxygen. For each plot, the percent areal coverage is estimated for each
plant species present, and dominant species is determined. Species are assigned a Wetland Indicator
Status (Reed, 1988), which is based on the estimated probability of each plant species' occurrence in
wetlands or nonwetland (see Table 1).
Table 1. Wetland Indicator Status
(Adapted from Reed, 1988.)
The indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetative unit (tree, shrub, herb) is used to
determine if the plant community of an area is characterized as hydrophytic. If 50 percent or greater
of the dominant plants in a unit have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC, the vegetation is
considered to be hydrophytic in both manuals.
Common plant names are used throughout this text. Scientific nomenclature of all plant species
encountered follows that of Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock & Cronquist, 1973). Where the
taxonomic names of plant species have been changed since 1973, plant names follow the 1988 list of
synonymies (Reed, 1988, revised 1993).
Soils
The King County Soil Survey (Snyder, et al, 1973) and Hydric'Soils list (Soil Conservation Service,
1985) were consulted for the presence of mapped hydric soils within the project area. Soils were
assessed in the field by examining soil for hydric indicators to a minimum depth of 18 inches with a
soil auger. Soil characteristics examined include hue, value, and chroma, as identified on a Munsell
soil color chart (Munsell Color, 1992). Hydric soil indicators include mottles, low soil chroma,
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
5
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
gleying, and high organic content. Mottles are spots or blotches of contrasting color occurring within
the soil matrix. Gleyed soils are predominantly neutral gray in color.
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation, to within 12 Q •
inches of the soil surface, for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season H z
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are observed, it r
is assumed that wetland hydrology occurs for a significant period of the growing season. Direct 6 v
indicators of wetland hydrology include areas of ponding or soil saturation. Indirect indicators 0 0
include dry algae on bare soil, water marks on soil or leaves, drift lines, oxidized root channels u) LL
associated with living roots and rhizomes, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. w H
N u-
Duration of inundation and /or soil saturation for the Ecology manual is based on the number of days w 0
during the growing season that are at 320 Fahrenheit (00 Centigrade) or above. Wetlands in the
Pacific Northwest area must have 26 days of continuous saturation or inundation within the growing
season to meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. Within the study area, direct and indirect
indicators of wetland hydrology were recorded on data sheets and described. H W
Z =
I- 0
Z
The "routine on -site determination method" was used to delineate wetlands within the study area.
This method is used for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively 0 0
homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. A combination of field indicators, including 0 c
vegetation, soils, and hydrology, were used to determine wetland edges. Sampling results for the
three criteria were analyzed to make a wetland determination for each plot. Based on the results of
plot determinations and visual observation of site characteristics, an overall assessment of the area
was conducted and wetland boundaries were located. For all wetland plots identified, data for a
corresponding upland plot was collected to confirm the edge of the wetland. Wetland Data Forms are
included as Appendix B. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially numbered pink
colored flagging. Wetland flagging was surveyed by CTS Engineers, Inc.
Method
4.3 Review of Existing Information
Prior to conducting field evaluations, existing literature, maps, and other materials were reviewed to
identify potential wetlands within the study area. This information included the following.
• City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps (City of Tukwila, 1997)
• City of Renton Wetland Inventory Maps (City of Renton, 1991)
■ City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps (1996)
• Renton, Washington, Topographic Quadrangle (USGS, 1994)
• National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton Quadrangle (USFW, 1988)
■ Soil Suruey of King County Area, Washington (Snyder et al, 1973)
• Hydric Soils of the State of Washington (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1985)
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information System Data
Base (1998)
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
6
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
0 I-
W W
I- H
u' O
z
W
U =
0 1
Z
w,
■ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Non -Game Priority Habitats and Species
Data Base (1998)
• Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Herrera
Environmental Consultants, 1997)
• Preliminary Site Plan, Oaksdale Business Campus (CNA Architecture, 1998)
• Preliminary Draft Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, Creekside Storage Park (Barghausen
Consulting Engineers, 1997)
Wetland Mapping
National Wetland Inventory
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps portions of three wetlands within the study area
(Figure 3). A Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded wetland (PFOA) lies within the .northwest
portion of the study area; a Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Seasonally Flooded, Excavated wetland (PSSCx)
lies between the railroad tracks; and a Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded wetland (PEMC) is
associated with Mill and Springbrook Creeks.
City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps
The City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Maps, dated 1997, depict one wetland (Wetland 12) within the
study area (see Figure 4) extending from the eastern right -of -way of the UPRR tracks, north and
west of the project area.
City of Renton Wetland Inventory Maps
The City of Renton Wetland Inventory Maps (Jones & Stokes, 1991) and the City of Renton Wetland
Inventory Update (Jones & Stokes, 1996) depict Wetland 45 within the project area located on the
north side of South 180th Street and on the east side of the BNSF railroad right -of -way (Figure 5).
This wetland corresponds to "Herrera Wetland A" (see below).
City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps
The City of Kent Wetland Inventory Maps (City of Kent, 1996) depict a wetland associated with the
riparian corridors of both Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek within the study area (Figure 6).
Tacoma -to Seattle Commuter Rail Project Wetlands
Two wetlands were previously delineated within the study area north of South 180th Street and east
of the BNSF railroad right -of -way and described in a report titled Ecosystems Technical
Memorandum: Tacoma -to- Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Herrera Environmental Consultants,
1997). These wetlands are referred to in this report as "Herrera Wetland A" and "Herrera Wetland
B" and shown in Figure 7. Both wetlands were delineated on September 30, 1997 using the Corps
manual and are described in Sections 5.5 and 5.6.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
7
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
r:ifw 5;ih5C�::t i' i a�: bluer ':''•a+�+i�iL'�+is�' >ti?u�o•', ' xis• A!iV.ag..1 ^di v;:''
Project Area
Not to Scale
E GEND
PFOA — Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded
PSSCx — Palustrine Scrub Seasonally Flooded, Excavated
PEMC — Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded
North
Source:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988
National Wetland inventory Map
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 3
yq /Re .P'ITP!`X
• , I
_
a
o
,T)
cD
CD
- 9
co
(D
1 .....
;-. 1 71 tAl'E S go
13 r C.2.,
72A49 AVE S
IN NI IN IN
-c
r
(rs
1
IN MI III III III IN III II Mk
Zi i a
b.
O I i
■••..I f
1. ..... I
•
•-
( : •
1'13. • ;4i/OZ
......_:...L.2_711-7.. .... j..., z--
. -
- :
,) u
.-. '
:;:
1 g ,,
11., =:T -- .. -: 5 '___L--A-' - __:____-•z .-i.----t-4=--t- ,,---•°- '2....1.4)11.4:21)..i...wwv;),I.p.:4!:!..1.;,:34)11---
t, ;1.0 of ) 01 y l:c r V ii.tyyr vkl,,W tris;)) )W,) 150))2.01).1,1
A IN II 111 1111 MI III 111111111111110100g Olt pie *Ili 41 leutioig*U161.1W.P I 11;4 ) 1 ) T ,
el
C-4------- 4. * I )3-A:1111 1)3" ';-•°. It): ' i )' ts)W /1:.,"16.1).11)}41? : g / ) . 1 41,* 1 !: ;
')) i ))61 ) Yi1)1 ))) Mi t.)°"" /?'' ?1 ')4 )) ) " )))).,:-;s •
.1)
CD I
MI • MI II III III 11 IN III• IN •
z •
- - •
•
k I
\ • 6' --
r_ r_: ‘''••• ;•-•;-- •
RLiNGTON ,NOR NORPA - •
s••,.
\ !tz ; rLL Jtn.tt ,."
INDUSTRIAL7--...
• 1..
7200
1.4
,•
& lal/1764 CO= & adEs 5s0A6M-1111101F1MillintEllit tifierularemalamileini+.1131";
'634311011E"filEr RENTON COP; - Limo
MI MI NI
1111 NI
c
r.:. r •
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Not to Scale
1
a
1
W--22
W-32
Q ty
1
�.� ' A 11. 8
r) tot
Project Area
W -'40
Ito
cab
S -28
W -1
W -35
3
4 W--34
•
•
1 '
J
C3
Ga
North
Source:
City of Renton, 1991
City of Renton Wetland Inventory
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 5
z
=
re W
QQ 2
J U
00
CO p
CO W
W I
1—
CD W
W
U)
=
�
Z �
Z
ui
U
0—
❑I—
W
I—
u'O
W
Z
U =
O ~
z
Not to Scale
NW 36 -23 -04
WETLAND INVENTORY
OTT N um 101e1001e 1M0101171M WITTY
SHEET 35 I NW
1$
so
■
•
Mf1 m M MOM M 1 I•IIMI MI Mt. m1101/
• t1•., IMMM.
M IIM M 011 Wt M •M1• • mom. MM
11 M10M1. M 11 MMMM. 114 01f•i1 M M
1011111111. 1M0/I11 MM1M0 M
1 \11010011 r 0000 M11*.
11M11.0•00 r 11, 1MMM1 NM 11 tMMIM •
M 1/
MOM* 0 Mrlt IS mimeo. 1 11 110 111.
M OMM MF0011M w 1111 111 IM MOW 11 1
w. 011 two, raw 100 0 1111 0.001
1111 M11MMIr MOM M/1M/1II.11YMM1 11111
1+V MMIIMI, 41•111 • MI r• 111, M 1111111
IM 111 • MM 10(0 11111 1 t.
1111 MM}1MI MM IM1 111 MM11M111MI1 M
IM•1l 111111 — 1 Y I,0 1111.
M 011 Of 1111 1M1MM. M MMI 1,11 MM % M1
111. 111 M Mt 11.110 M 111111111 MM. 01001
MOM. 0•11011 011 M1• M -, 011 , M
0111110« 111 1110 It w 0110 1 1111•
PRINTED: 06 -20 -9G
NORTH
SCALE: 1"=300'
LEGEND
— 1/4 SECTION Lift
1nM11/mlwnlmin Mtn CITY LIMITS
WrTLAND
1 111pO 11T01<M 1 0.
0.001010e 110( corm PIM AI/AL ►11.10111 ova. arm, 110
0.01010 LIND 01tl0 0 141 /1.00.041 (nom mu Ammon 1011)
Source:
City of Kent, 1996
City of Kent Wetland Inventory
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 6
•..:;te:.0 ✓rM: - `�x::iiatr:sm: 3.,c
,^ .iri �':'."`' �: JiTII3RS1l -0�VIxAf:3h;}
r,nY *.;r ;';•FSti?✓"�' w *'`i*3j�.''�Y'It.t:�' «
.1
z
--1
O 0
CO U W
J
H
U) U
W
co
= W
H
ZI—
t— O
Z
W
U
O -
0H
W
F— • -
W Z
Ili to
O
Z
`.i
Centerline Westerly
BNSF Mainline
• 1
1
1
A
1
1
Centerline Easterly 1
BNSF Mainline 1
(not surveyed) 1
1
A
Not to Scale
Wetlands Area "B"
1/4 Acres (Approx.) 1 •
8
X4_ 4;.
Existing Crossing M 60 - 67'
Signal and Gates
t_
- I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
A
A
Wetlands Area "A"
5 Acres (Approx.)
co
A
A
352
A
A
a
1
A
.•
North Pavement Edge of South 180th Street
<— The wetland extends further to the east.
Adjacent property Owner to provide the
wetland delineation for this extension.
F Project Limit
LEGEND
Wetland Boundary
Railroad Centerline
Wetland Symbol
Existing Pavement Edge
Source:
Herrera Environmental Consultants, 1998
Commuter Rail Project Wetlands
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 7
v .4.1.t lir
•
King County Soil Survey
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly known as the Soil Conservation
Service) defines hydric soils as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile (SCS, 1987). The
NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, has compiled lists of
hydric soils of the United States (SCS, 1985, 1987). These lists identify soil series mapped by the
NRCS that meet hydric soil criteria.
The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Soil Survey) maps Woodinville silt loam (map
symbol — Wo) as the dominant soil within the study area (Figure 8). Other soils include Puget silty
clay loam (map symbol — Pu) in the northern portion of the study area, Newberg silt loam (map
symbol — Ng) in the southeastern portion of the study area, Puyallup fine sandy loam (map symbol —
Py) along the Springbrook Creek riparian corridor, and Urban land (map symbol — Ur) in the
southwestern portion of the study area.
The Woodinville series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium on stream bottoms
with a typical profile as a gray silt loam with layers of peaty muck extending from the surface to a
depth of 38 inches. Permeability is moderately slow, runoff potential is slow, erosion hazard is slight,
and flooding potential is severe unless flood protection is provided. Available water - holding capacity
is high and there is a seasonally high water table at or near the surface (Snyder, et al, 1973).
Woodinville silt loam is classified as a hydric soil (SCS, 1985, 1987).
The Puget series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile that is
dominantly mottled dark grayish brown and grayish brown silty clay loam from the surface to a
depth of 60 inches. Permeability is slow, runoff potential is slow to ponded, erosion and slippage
hazard is slight, flooding potential is severe, and available water - holding capacity is high (Snyder, et
al, 1973). Puget silt loam is classified as a hydric soil (SCS, 1985, 1987).
The Puyallup series consists of well- drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as
very dark grayish brown and dark grayish brown fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of
34 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is
slight, flooding potential is slight to severe, and available water - holding capacity is moderately high
(Snyder, et al, 1973). Puyallup fine sandy loam is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS, 1985, 1987).
The Newberg series consists of well- drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as
very dark grayish brown silt loam and very fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of 20 inches.
Permeability is moderate, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is slight, flooding
potential is slight to severe, and available water - holding capacity is high (Snyder, et al, 1973).
Newberg silt loam is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS, 1985, 1987).
Urban land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill
material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green
River Valley, the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy
loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate (Snyder, et al, 1973).
Urban land is not classified as a hydric soil (SCS, 1985, 1987).
Natural Heritage Program Data Base
Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program data base was
searched for information on significant natural features within the study area. No records for rare
plants or high - quality ecosystems were found for the study area vicinity.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
13
td
�ru
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
V.
WO — Woodinville Silt Loam
Pu — Puget Silty Clay Loam
Ng — Newberg Silt Loam
Py — Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam
Ur — Urban Land
Source:
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1973
King County Soil Survey
South 180th Street Grade Separation
• K13S�, 5`,. 4'. �t '"`'�k'fe:'4St`.'1�':�'rA':!�)i .c'y,�.- La•;.t.+'• ,'k•.e. •,µ :�x ;: �j ..
1
4
Priority Habitats and Species Data Base
The Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species data base was examined
for endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species; species of concern; and priority habitats
within the project area. The results of this investigation are discussed in the Wildlife Study
prepared for the project (BERGER/ABAM, 2000).
5.0 WETLAND INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION
A field survey to identify and delineate wetlands within the study area was conducted by Senior
Ecologists Gail Brooks and Keith Fabing on July 16 and 20, 1998. Observations of topography,
vegetation, soils, and hydrology identified four wetlands within the study area boundaries. Two
formal data plots were established within relatively uniform areas of vegetation for each wetland
within the study area. Data forms, which correspond to formal data plots, are provided in Appendix
B. The wetlands found within the study area are shown in Figure 9.
5.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is located in the city of Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide
swale that runs north /south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way and extends north beyond
the study area boundaries. The total area of Wetland A is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The
wetland is represented by Data Plot Al in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within Wetland A include Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW)
and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC) in the tree layer. The shrub layer was dominated
by Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FACW). Broad - leaved cattail (Typha latifolia OBL), water
smartweed (Polygonum amphibium, OBL), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus, FAC), and field horsetail
(Equisetum arvense, FAC) dominated in the herb layer. Based on a dominance of species rated
Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Wetland A were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al, 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were dark grayish brown
(10YR 4/2) silty clay with yellowish brown mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. Grey
gleyed (N5/) silty clay soils were observed below 18 inches in depth. These soils were considered
hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface.
Hydrology
The sources of hydrology to Wetland A include direct precipitation, surfacewater runoff from
adjacent areas, a high groundwater table, and potential stormwater from north of the study area. A
culvert is located at the southern end of the wetland, adjacent to the South 180th Street railroad
crossing. The wetland was inundated in areas to depths varying from several inches to 2 feet at the
time of the site investigation. Soils sampled within the data plot were moist to the surface.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979),
which is the current federal standard for classifying wetland habitat, Wetland A is classified as a
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
15
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
:, . I ads;
iitztee t a40.0.4 s ' :on flat. xe v .au,a n .xr
4 .aWIN
City of Tukwila
f «,
' Wetland 12
(Approximate ..`
�.�
'
Pro eotUimits
.- =I =I lism,Imea e r■ J Wetland
a'r " ` ' .i' . wNVelw • r ' T , • B
0 : 7, 3
P roject Li
m j R.
P
cr-
Not to Scale
roject' Limits:
moo
,;Project Limits.':
i
6' � ■.- . k� � V ` .M+ .l. r" �, ,,j '. L3'r'CJ''i�Gw�.`�'Z:L.erIY
•
fr
North
Source:
BERGER /ABAM Engineers, 1998
Project Area Wetlands and Riparian Corridor
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 9
palustrine scrub - shrub /palustrine emergent ( PSS/PEM) open water wetland. Although this wetland
is subject to disturbance and has no critical habitat for threatened /endangered species (City of
Tukwila, 2000), it would likely be classified as a Type 1 wetland by the City of Tukwila because it
was historically part of a large Class 1 wetland.
5.2 Wetland B
z
Wetland B is located in Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that o:
runs north /south between the UPRR right -of -way and the Interurban Trail and extends north
beyond the study area. The total area of Wetland B is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The 0 O
wetland is represented by Data Plot B1 in Appendix B. 0
co
Vegetation -'
H
Lu � tL
O
The dominant vegetation species within Wetland B include red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa,
FACU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU), and red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera,
FACW) in the shrub layer; and reed canary -grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), (Polygonum
amphibium, OBL), and bigroot (Marah oreganus, NL) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a = d
dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered F- _
hydrophytic. z E..
1- O
zt-
Soils
w
w
Soils in Wetland B were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al, 1973). The 0 cn
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were grey gleyed N4 /muck 0 H
from the surface to a depth of 18 inches. These soils were considered hydric due to low chroma and = w
gleying within 10 inches of the surface. H
u
El z
U =
0 F-
Hydrology
Like in Wetland A, the sources of hydrology to Wetland B include direct precipitation, surfacewater
runoff from the adjacent areas, a high groundwater table, and potential stormwater from north of
the study area. The wetland was inundated throughout much of its area within the study area to
depths varying from several inches to 2 feet at the time of the site investigation. Soils sampled
within the data plot were saturated.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979),
Wetland B is classified as a palustrine scrub- shrub /palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM) open water
wetland. Although this wetland is subject to disturbance and has no critical habitat for
threatened /endangered species (City of Tukwila, 2000), it would likely be classified as a Type 1
wetland by the City of Tukwila because it was historically part of a large Class 1 wetland.
5.3 Wetland C
Wetland C is located in Kent on the south side of South 180th Street within a depression that runs
north /south between the BNSF and UPRR rights -of -way. The wetland is represented by Data Plot
C1 in Appendix B.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
17
cw4.4o::a ..
=WO'
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
z
Vegetation
Soils
Hydrology
The dominant vegetation species within Wetland C are field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC),
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and bigroot (Marah oreganus, NL) in the
herbaceous layer. Based on a dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the
wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils in Wetland C were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al, 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in depth within the A- horizon were very dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2) silty silt loam with yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) mottles from the surface to a depth
of 18 inches. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty silt loam soils were observed below 12 inches in
depth. These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the
surface.
The sources of hydrology to Wetland C include direct precipitation and surfacewater runoff from the
adjacent areas. Soils sampled within the data plot were dry at the time of the field investigation.
However, given the low matrix color with the presence of mottles and the sustained dry summer
weather conditions, wetland hydrology during the growing season was assumed to be sufficient to
meet the wetland hydrology criteria.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979),
Wetland C is classified as a palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland. This wetland would likely be
classified as a Category 3 wetland by the City of Kent, because it equal to or less than 1 acre in size
and has two or fewer wetland classes (City of Kent Wetlands Management Code).
5.4 Wetland D
Wetland D is located in Tukwila on the north side of South 180th Street within a wide swale that
runs north /south between the Interurban Trail and the commercial /industrial properties beyond the
western boundary of the study area. Wetland D extends towards the west and north beyond the
study area boundaries. The total area of Wetland D is estimated to be greater than 1 acre. The
wetland is represented by Data Plot D1 in Appendix B.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within the shrub layer of Wetland D include Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus discolor, FACU), with Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW +), and sitka willow in the
northern portion; and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), field horsetail (Equisetum
arvense, FAC), and Canada thistle (Cirsiurn arvense, FACU +) in the herbaceous layer. Based on a
dominance of species rated Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered
hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Wetland D were mapped as Woodinville silt loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al, 1973). The
soils sampled in the wetland at 10 inches in. depth within the A- horizon were dark gray (10YR 4/1)
silty muck with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) mottles from the surface to a depth of 18 inches.
These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma with mottles within 10 inches of the surface.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
18
BERGERJABAM, A00084
December 2000
z
w
J
00
0
CO
SQ LL
w
2
g
= d.
�
z =
t._
t— O
zt—
ut
• w
U �
O (
O 1-
w w
0 r-
u- O
w
z
U =
O 1 '
z
..n
.J
Hydrology
The sources of hydrology to Wetland D include direct precipitation, a high groundwater table, and
surfacewater runoff from the adjacent areas. Soils sampled within the data plot were saturated to
the surface at the time of the field investigation.
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979),
Wetland D is classified as a palustrine emergent (PEM/PSS) wetland. This wetland would likely be
classified as a Type 2 wetland by the City of Tukwila, because it is greater than 1 acre, is subject to
disturbance, and has no critical habitat or threatened /endangered species (City of Tukwila, 1997).
5.5 Herrera Wetland A
Herrera Wetland A is located in Renton in the southwest corner of the parcel located east of the
BNSF and north of South 180th Street. The area of this wetland was estimated to be approximately
5 acres in size within the study area. This wetland is described as an isolated scrub -shrub wetland
that is confined to a swale paralleling the railroad tracks (Herrera & Associates, 1997). A wetland
delineation report for Herrera & Associates (1997) delineation has been prepared BERGER/ABAM.
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species within Herrera Wetland A were reported as Oregon ash (Fraxinus
latifolia, FACW), red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera, FACW), and reed canary -grass (Phalaris
arundinacea, FACW) (Herrera & Associates, 1997). Based on a dominance of species rated
Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Herrera Wetland A were mapped as Woodinville loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al, 1973).
The soils sampled in the wetland data plot were reported as dark gray (10YR 4/1) silt with dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles from the surface to a depth of 16 inches (Herrera & Associates,
1997). These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma soils (1OYR 4/1 with mottles).
Hydrology
Herrera Wetland A hydrology was assumed through observation of indirect indicators of saturation
within the wetland, such as watermarks, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, and water stained
leaves (Herrera & Associates, 1997).
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979), the
Herrera Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub - shrub /palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM)
wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 2 wetland by the City of Renton,
because it is greater than 2,200 square feet and is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland (City of Renton,
1992).
A large blackberry thicket dominates the southcentral portion of the site between Herrera Wetland A
and Herrera Wetland B. Site topography and observed soil characteristics suggested that fill
material was placed in the location of the Himalayan blackberry thicket, separating Herrera
Wetland A from the larger Herrera Wetland B complex. Herrera & Associates speculated that a
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
19
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
house with ornamental plants used to occupy this fill area, as evidenced by the presence of cherry
trees, English ivy, red elderberry, and blackberries (Herrera & Associates, 1997).
5.6 Herrera Wetland B
Herrera Wetland B is located in Renton and is part of a large wetland system that extends north
beyond the study area, where it encompasses shrub /scrub, emergent and open water vegetation
classes that are hydrologically connected to Springbrook Creek. The area of the wetland was
estimated to be approximately 0.25 acre within the study area (Herrera & Associates, 1997).
Vegetation
The dominant vegetation species reported within Herrera Wetland B include Pacific willow (Salix
lasiandra, FACW +), red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera, FACW), invading Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus discolor, FACU), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii, FACW), and reed canary -grass (Phalaris
arundinacea, FACW) (Herrera & Associates, 1997). Based on a dominance of species rated
Facultative or wetter, vegetation in the wetland is considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils in Herrera Wetland B were mapped as Woodinville loam by the NRCS (Snyder et al, 1973).
The soils sampled in the wetland data plot were reported as very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt
with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles from the surface to a depth of 16 inches (Herrera &
Associates, 1997). These soils were considered hydric due to a low chroma soils with mottles.
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology within Herrera Wetland B was assumed through observation of indirect
indicators of saturation, such as with watermarks, drainage patterns, sediment deposits, and water
stained leaves (Herrera & Associates 1997).
Classification and Rating
According to the wetland classification system established by the USFWS (Cowardin et al, 1979), the
Herrera Wetland B would be classified as a palustrine scrub- shrub /palustrine emergent (PSS/PEM)
'wetland. This wetland would likely be classified as a Category 2 wetland by the City Renton,
because it is greater than 2,200 square feet and has minimum evidence of human - related physical
alteration (City of Renton, 1992).
6.0 WETLAND IMPACTS
A total of 1.11 acres of wetland (all of Wetland A and Wetland C within the study area boundaries)
will be filled and 2.29 acres of Wetland A buffer will be filled as a result of the development of three
temporary detours, or "shooflies," for the BNSF and UPRR tracks. No impacts to wetlands are
expected to occur as a result of the roadway and underpass construction. Impacts are shown on
Figure 10.
Prior to and during construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to protect
critical areas from development impacts. The following general measures are recommended to avoid
or minimize impacts to wetlands and streams and their associated buffers during project
construction.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
20
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
r- ._ ".,�.:'s.wl::;ri`u ",.�, �w1'ti'.5'sC L'd ai} 'uv:':ly;n:uia`'rP' SR".s"7 :' rr:.• .1: y:'s«iCtSwisi 'ray- !�i+Y: tw .uig.: &, 4a..kktr..4a4.:iwo, - w'.:7us4n
• A preconstruction meeting on site with the construction contractor, City of Tukwila personnel,
and a professional biologist to discuss the construction sequencing
• Installing orange construction or other fencing approved by the City of Tukwila on the outside
edge of the wetland buffer prior to any construction activity on the site to ensure that no activity
occurs within the wetland, stream, or associated buffer
• Confining all machinery, stockpiled soils, fill material, waste materials, and construction activity
to the construction areas designated and approved by the City for construction - related operations
• Hydroseeding of any disturbed areas with an approved native seed mix specified in the planting
plan; the purpose of rapid revegetation is to prevent invasion of exotic species, retain the
integrity of the plant association and wildlife habitats, reduce erosion of denuded soils, and
minimize sedimentation into the study area and downstream wetlands and streams
• Maintaining erosion control measures until the area has been successfully planted
(approximately one year) and approved by a qualified professional biologist
• Storing hazardous materials outside of the study area
• Restricting the clearing of vegetation to the minimum necessary to complete the project
■ Establishing temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and other BMPs as required
by the City of Tukwila, including, but not limited to
- Filter fabric fencing and /or straw bale barriers along the edge of construction areas to
capture suspended sediments in construction site runoff discharging into the wetlands
- Collection of sediments and other fine- grained materials deposited on the road surface
periodically during construction to prevent washoff into sensitive areas by precipitation
7.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
Wetlands are known to play significant functional roles in their respective ecosystems and have uses
that are valued by society. These intrinsic features are complex, often inseparable, and difficult to
assess and quantify. Evaluations of the functions of individual wetlands are necessarily qualitative
and dependent upon professional judgment.
A wetland functions and values assessment was conducted for impacted wetlands within the study
area (Wetlands A and C) using the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi - Quantitative Assessment
Methodology, Draft User's Manual (Cooke, 1996). Using the Semi - Quantitative Assessment
Methodology (SAM), ratings were assessed for eight categories of wetland functions based on a
number of variables that were evaluated for each category listed below. Functional assessment data
forms are included in Appendix C.
Flood / Stormwater Control
Wetlands serve in flood /stormwater control through detention of peak flows within a wetland system
and the slow discharge of the water to downstream receiving waters. The efficiency of a particular
wetland system in performing runoff control is based upon the storage capacity and outlet discharge
capacity of the wetland relative to the magnitude of the inflow. The value of wetlands in reducing
downstream flooding increases with an increase in wetland area, the magnitude of the flood, the
proximity of the wetland to the flooded area, and the lack of other storage areas.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
22
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
:ry
41"Ael:iitiVAil*4440 `r4 `"'W:
Base Flow /Groundwater Support Functions
Wetlands can recharge an aquifer, discharge to a downstream wetland, and /or attenuate
surfacewater flows. Wetlands can provide groundwater recharge or discharge, or provide both, at
different times of the year. The majority of wetlands serve predominantly for groundwater discharge
and only a few are recharge systems. Groundwater recharge replenishes aquifers and filters water.
With later discharge elsewhere (often in other wetlands), it provides a perennial water source for
wetlands and provides dry season stream flow, benefiting stream dependent species.
Erosion /Shoreline Protection Functions
Erosion control is closely linked with other wetland functions and is most often of concern in wetland
systems with water flow sufficient to resuspend and transport sediments, or in wetlands that have
been physically disturbed. Decreased water velocity, vegetative structure, soil root - binding
properties, and substrate type will lessen the effect of water - related erosion. This function is
especially present in shallow, flood plain wetlands where velocities are slow and vegetation is dense.
Such vegetation is composed of species that provide for effective trapping of sediments and which
impede or slow water flow so that sediments settle out. Erosion and shoreline protection is especially
important in riparian corridors where the vegetation can have strong root systems to hold sediments
together and prevent loss of stream banks. This function is not present in isolated wetlands that do
not have water flowing through them.
Water Quality Improvement Functions
The morphology of freshwater wetlands provides simple physical processes that remove sediment.
Flood plain morphology, the length and width of the wetland, landscape characterization, vegetation
community structure, and productivity have a great influence on the water velocity, type of
sedimentation, and rate of sedimentation. Particulate materials are removed through settling, which
is controlled by water velocity, particle size, and the residence time of water in the wetland, through
physical filtration by vegetation, and substrate.
Wetlands remove excessive nutrients, heavy metals, and certain organic compounds through a
variety of physical and biological processes. The ability of a wetland to perform these functions is
closely related to other functions, such as sediment removal, water quality parameters, wetland
hydrology, and vegetation community composition, density, richness, structure, and productivity.
The ability of a wetland to perform these functions varies with the nature of the wetland, the degree
of disturbance of the wetland, and according to unusual events and seasonal cycles. Water quality
parameters, such as dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and total suspended solids (TSS), influence the
chemical form and fate of nutrients, metals, and organic compounds in wetland systems. Nutrients
and other pollutants often bind with suspended sediments are incorporated into the soils through
sedimentation. Nutrients, metals, and organic materials stored in the soils are taken up by
vegetation as biomass, buried in the sediments as peat is deposited, or exported out of the wetland.
Natural Biological Support Functions
Wetlands generally are characterized by high primary productivity (food production that fuels the
food chain). Primary production within wetlands can be important to wildlife and fish that spend
part or all of their lives within wetlands. There are two major energy flow patterns in wetlands: the
grazing food chain that involves the consumption of living green plants, and the detrital food chain
composed of organisms that depend on detritus and /or organic debris for their food source. Areas
with surface flow have the potential to export decomposed photosynthetic products beyond the
boundary of the wetland.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
23
BERGERJABAM, A00084
December 2000
Nutrient cycling in wetlands occurs in both plants and the sediments. Nutrients can be stored in
sediments by being bound to organic compounds and clays. Nutrients that are incorporated into
plant tissues are unavailable to the ecosystem as long as the plant material is alive. Annual growth
in deciduous plants usually dies back at the end of the growing season, and the biomass ends up
falling to the ground. The biomass either decomposes and releases the nutrients as dissolved
compounds, or stays bound to organic matter in saturated conditions until conditions become
conducive for decomposition. Once the nutrients are released, they become available for uptake by
other plants, can be in storage in the sediments, and the cycle continues.
Many species of wildlife are adapted to or require wetland habitats for at least a portion of their life
cycle. The variety of vegetation, substrate types, hydrologic regimes, and the sizes and
characteristics of the edge between habitat types are critical factors for wildlife. The association
between adjacent habitats is especially important in riparian areas that are crucial to many species
of wildlife.
Overall Habitat Functions
Plant species occur in distinct communities that are identifiable and often repeated across the
landscape. Most species of both plant and wildlife have preferred habitats in specific zones
associated with physical gradients, such as light, moisture, hydrologic regime, and elevation. High
plant species richness is often associated with areas that have multiple habitats in close proximity.
Mature wetland systems are characterized by the presence of many niches accounting for high plant
and animal diversity. Rare, large, or unusual habitats are valuable and are often set aside as
sanctuaries. The rareness of a wetland community "type" may be due to the lack of a particular set
of environmental factors, or species distributions in a particular watershed or region. The rarity of a
wetland- associated species may be due to the fact that the species is adapted to a specific set of
environmental conditions, which may not be present in very many places. The opportunity for the
species to have appropriate conditions for living may, therefore, be rare. Wetlands may also be
differentially lost and rare in a region because particular wetland types have experienced more
development pressure or are especially sensitive to human impacts.
Specific Habitat Functions
Invertebrate Habitat. Wetlands near aquatic habitats can be considered to have aquatic
invertebrates (insects), even if none are directly observed. Examples of invertebrate habitat are
muddy shallow water areas where water velocities are slow; there is no fine sediment build -up; and
thin - stemmed emergent plants, such as sedges, rushes, and some aquatic herbs, are present.
Amphibian Habitat. Water depth is important, with individual species preferring specific depths. In
general, shallow water zones with between 1 and 2.5 feet of water are ideal. Urbanized wetlands
where bullfrogs are present are less likely to have a rich amphibian fauna due to their competition
with native species.
■
Fish Habitat. It is assumed that if a stream associated with a wetland has good gravels, permanent
moving water, and overhanging vegetation along the banks of the stream is present to prevent water
temperatures from getting too high, it has high fish habitat potential. If the same conditions exist
but an obstruction over 15 feet long is present downstream, then the habitat potential is only
moderate to low.
Mammal Habitat. High habitat potential occurs when a large, very structurally diverse habitat is
present within the wetland or adjacent buffer boundary that is at least 100 feet wide. The presence
of houses and domesticated pets decreases the likelihood of the presence of native small mammals.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
24
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
-&, uso:Yix' cnL,".ia.G�'.72'rn ,tsi"*.gt • :a.�.'ixk4dAiat`d `
Bird Habitat. High habitat potential is available in seasonally flooded agricultural fields, large
structurally diverse wetlands, or lacustrine (lake or large pond) systems with associated wetland and
buffer habitats.
Cultural /Socioeconomic Functions
Cultural and economic characteristics are evaluated from a purely value -based perspective. Most of
the human -use opportunities can be quantified by determining the ownership of the wetland and
associated buffer, and the proximity of the wetland to humans who could potentially use the wetland
for recreational or commercial purposes.
Not all wetlands provide all of the functions and values listed above. It should be noted that four
wetlands within the study area extended beyond the study area boundaries and were not
investigated beyond these boundaries. Functions and values discussed in this report represent only
the portions of the wetlands within the study area.
For ease of discussion purposes in this report, the numbered rating for each category has been
converted to a high, moderate, or low rating as follows.
• High = 75 to 100% of maximum score
• Moderate = 50 to 74% of maximum score
■ Low = <50% of maximum score
Based on these ratings, each wetland was given an overall low, moderate, or high rating.
Wetland A functional values rated
• MODERATE for flood and stormwater control
• MODERATE for base flow and groundwater support
• LOW for erosion and shoreline protection
■ HIGH for water quality improvement
■ MODERATE for natural biological support
• HIGH for overall habitat functions
■ HIGH for specific habitat functions
■ MODERATE for cultural and socioeconomic values
Wetland C functional values rated
• MODERATE for flood and stormwater control
• MODERATE for base flow and groundwater support
• Erosion and shoreline protection did not apply
• MODERATE for water quality improvement
• LOW for natural biological support
• LOW for overall habitat functions
• LOW for specific habitat functions
• LOW for cultural and socioeconomic values
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
25
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
8.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
8.1 Wetland Regulation and Classification
The primary federal laws that regulate activities in or near wetlands are Sections 401 and 404 of the z
Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 401 of the CWA Q •
mandates that federally permitted activities in wetlands comply with the CWA and state water quality = z
standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology is responsible for administering the Section ct g
401 regulations in the state of Washington. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of 6 U
Engineers (Corps) has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge of dredged 0 0
or fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United States (Federal Register, 1986). co w
J H
8.2 City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations cn L.
w 0
Wetland impacts are limited to the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, therefore, only the City's
regulatory requirements will be discussed. The City of Tukwila, through the adoption of the g
Sensitive Areas Overlay (Chapter 18.45, Tukwila Municipal Code), regulates development activities c a
within and adjacent to wetlands and other sensitive areas. = w
F-
z1—
Regulated wetlands are defined as "those ponds or lakes 30 acres or less and those lands subject to
the "wetland" definition..." in Section 2.1 of this study. Constructed wetlands are not considered z 0
ui
wetlands. However, artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate
wetland impacts as permitted by the City of Tukwila are considered wetlands. Isolated wetlands U
that are less than 1,000 square feet or smaller in area may not require compensatory mitigation 0 to
(Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Municipal Code). H
ww
The City of Tukwila classifies wetlands according to the system developed by the U.S. Fish and 1-'
Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al, 1979). Wetlands are rated by the City of Tukwila Z
according to three categories, as shown in Table 2 on the following page. w co
1 1
According to City of Tukwila classification, Wetland A would likely be classified as Type 1 wetland by
the City of Tukwila, because although it is subject to disturbance and has no critical habitat or
threatened /endangered species it is estimated to be greater than 1 acre in size and was historically
hydrologically connected to a large Type 1 wetland complex. Type 2 wetlands require a 50 -foot
buffer. Wetland C would likely be classified as a Type 3 wetland because it equal to or less than
1 acre in size and has two or fewer wetland classes. Type 3 wetlands require a 25 -foot buffer.
A mitigation plan must be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, and
relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC 18.45.080A, 080B, and 080H. The mitigation plan is
developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the planning director.
Wetland and /or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly
demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and
qualitative functions. The plan must follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and
show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved.
In order to achieve the City of Tukwila's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage,
alteration of wetlands require the applicant to provide a restoration, enhancement, or creation plan
to compensate for the wetland impacts at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (area created:area impacted). On -site
compensation is preferred, provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that
• The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from the hydrology
and ecosystem will not be damaged by the on -site loss; and
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
26
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
Wetland Class
Wetland Buffer
Type 1 Wetlands: Those wetlands that meet any of the following criteria.
a) The presence of species listed by the federal government or the State of
Washington as endangered or threatened, or the presence of critical or
outstanding actual habitat for those species;
b) Wetlands having 40 to 60 percent permanent open water in dispersed
patches with two or more classes of vegetation; or
c) Wetlands equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and having three or
more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent open
water.
100 feet
Type 2 Wetlands: Those that meet any of the following criteria.
a) Wetlands greater than 1 acre in size;
b) Wetlands equal to or less than 1 acre in size and having three or more
wetland classes;
c) Wetlands equal to or less than 1 acre in size, that have a forested
wetland class comprised of at least 20 percent coverage of the total surface
area;
d) The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or
e) The presence of native plant associations of infrequent occurrence.
50 feet
Type 3 Wetlands: Those wetlands that are equal to or less than 1 acre in
size and that have two or fewer wetland classes.
25 feet
0.,
Ter
Table 2. City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Wetlands Rating System
(Chapter 18.45.020.C., Tukwila Municipal Code, City of Tukwila, 1997)
■ On -site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves,
or other factors; or
• Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or
• Existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than
lost wetland functional values; or
• That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat, or other wetland
functions have been established and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at
another site.
Off -site compensation must occur in the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. In
selecting compensation sites, applicants should pursue siting in the following order of preference.
• Upland sites that were formerly wetlands
■ Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic
species, weeds, or emergent vegetation
■ Other disturbed upland
Wetland enhancement or other mitigation landscaping is a permitted use in sensitive areas or
buffers only after review and approval by the planning director. Artificial wetlands intentionally
created from nonwetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands as permitted by the City of
Tukwila shall be considered wetlands. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a
review and synthesis of existing data is required for the proposed mitigation site.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
27
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
rF d ;itv - Zr.Mucara
z
z
�
0
to
J H
w 0
co
=
1 _ w
Z =
H
zI-
LL! u i
0
0—
❑
w W
H
O
iii z
U=
0 ~
z
-- 1
_.1
9.0 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
According to the Tukwila Municipal Code, mitigation for impacts to wetlands must be considered in
the following order.
• avoid disturbance to wetlands, streams, and /or buffers z
• minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and /or buffers Z f'
• compensate for any wetland, stream, or buffer impacts W
• restore any wetlands, streams, or buffers impacted
• create new wetlands and buffers to replace those that were lost v U
O
CO 0
For this project, the project design team considered all practical efforts to avoid and minimize co tu
potential impacts that could occur to wetlands and streams. Impacts to Wetlands B, D, and Herrera -J E
A and B, and their associated wetland buffers will be entirely avoided. Mitigation measures will rely Lu LL.
on wetland creation along with buffer enhancement as compensation for impacts to Wetlands A and w O
C. A minimum of 1.67 acres of wetland replacement is required. 5
�Q
Wetland mitigation goals for the project are as follows. c d
=
F-
w
• To achieve no net on -site loss of wetland and wetland buffer functions and values within the z H
Springbrook Creek drainage basin z 0
ww
• To compensate for loss of Wetland C and the filled portions of Wetland A v o
O N
O 1-
ww
m0
H
• To avoid habitat fragmentation
The objective of the mitigation plan developed for the project would be to create a mitigation wetland
with several habitat types to compensate for the lost functions and values of Wetland C and the filled
portions of Wetland A and its buffer that provide connectivity to existing habitat corridors. The
created wetland would be consistent with mitigation requirements as stated in the Tukwila
Municipal Code by providing a minimum of a 1.5 to 1 replacement ratio for wetland areas. Based
upon the existing functions of the wetlands and wetland buffers to be filled, the created mitigation
wetland area would provide at a minimum a net gain in the following functional wetland ratings to
the following levels.
• HIGH for flood and storm water control
• HIGH for base flow and groundwater support
• MODERATE for erosion and shoreline protection
• HIGH for water quality improvement
• HIGH for natural biological support
• HIGH for overall habitat functions
• HIGH for specific habitat functions
• HIGH for cultural and socioeconomic values
10.0 WETLAND MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The above - stated goals and objectives for on -site mitigation would be accomplished by creating a
palustrine emergent and palustrine -shrub wetland with an open water component. In order to
guide the City's mitigation efforts, several wetland creation and enhancement options were
investigated and are discussed below.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
28
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
+TPlatt :ee'<.x k.rs:,>a
L O
z
U °
-
O ~
z
10.1 Wetland Creation and Restoration Site Selection Criteria
The criteria for selecting wetland creation and restoration areas included the following
considerations.
• A preference for sites located within the same drainage subbasin
• Sites located within areas with sufficient hydrology to support wetland vegetation and seasonal
amphibian habitat
• The potential for connectivity to existing habitat corridors
Ideally, the mitigation wetlands would be situated so that they form a continuum with adjacent and
nearby habitat corridors that can result in a combined net gain in wildlife habitat function for all
associated systems.
10.2 Potential Wetland Creation Site Alternatives
Three potential wetland mitigation sites were investigated and are discussed below.
Herrera Wetlands Site
As previously described, the Herrera Wetlands site is a parcel located within the City of Renton east
of the BNSF and north of South 180th Street (Figure 11). The estimated available upland area for
mitigation at this site is approximately 2.15 acres.
The potential wetland creation area includes the upland area surrounding the wetlands and
dominated by a large blackberry thicket. Site topography and observed soil characteristics suggest
that fill material was placed in the location of the expansive Himalayan blackberry thicket,
separating Herrera Wetland A from the larger Herrera Wetland B complex. This upland area may
have historically been part of a larger wetland area prior to historic residential development.
Historic aerial photography analysis could provide insight into the nature of the impacts to the site
and historic site - specific wetland conditions prior to site development.
Fill materials can potentially be removed exposing original hydric soils and restoring historic
wetland hydrology. Given the current dominance of blackberry throughout this area, significant
improvement in vegetation community structure and diversity is achievable. Significant
improvement in wildlife habitat can also be achieved with connectivity to existing study area
wetlands and the Springbrook riparian corridor.
The site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, therefore, an agreement would need to be
established between the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton for use of the site.
Mill Creek Upland Site
The Mill Creek upland site is a "landlocked" parcel positioned south and east of Mill Creek and
immediately east of the BNSF right -of -way within the City of Kent (Figure 12). The parcel
comprises approximately 8.4 acres. The parcel is bordered by a warehouse facility on the east and
the newly constructed Creekside Storage facility across Mill Creek on the north. Permission to
access the site to complete a habitat and sensitive areas reconnaissance level analysis has not been
secured to date. Observations were completed from adjoining areas accessible to the general public
and from aerial photography. The soil series mapped on the site by the NRCS is Woodinville silt
loam, a hydric soil.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
29
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
Not to Scale
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers 1999
• • -• •,• • • -• • • • • • •••' ." • • ." • - • ••: • -• • • • • •
Herrera Wetlands Mitigation Site
South 180th Street Grade Separation
North
Figure 11
z
I H
z
LL1 2
-J
O 0
(J)
• W
LL.1
F_
(DLL
u j 0
§
• <
w
z
o
z 1—
LLJj
2
O co
O —
0 I—
W uj
0
1—
0
Z
w
P
o
••,
..',.1 , ,.'f, f'.. -,, ;;A:' t ... ;
.nt .
- ,■io: ,::. .6,47. ' :::,. • ::' . ,
Not to Scale
.•••7v.-7, ‘;.,
.•- •
'•
•
ifftrtt,,, •
• ,4 ,
•
• .
„, 1 . • • •
. ,
road
Bridge
•
.• .
"! •..
So. 180th St..
945
o •
L-rqe
. ,
North
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers 1999
Mill Creek Upland Wetland Mitigation Site
South 1 80th Street Grade Separation
Figure 12
J
The western half of the parcel is generally dominated by dense blackberry thickets interspersed with
patches of open grass. The eastern half appears to be comprised generally of a mixed scrub -shrub
community with both forested and open grass patches throughout this portion of the property.
Observable dominant tree species included cottonwood and red alder, which suggests the potential
for development of on -site wetlands. Topographically, the parcel is positioned approximately 20 feet
above the elevation of Mill Creek and its associated riparian wetlands.
The potential wetland creation area is located in what appears to be an upland area dominated by a
large blackberry thicket in the western portion of the site east of the railroad tracks. Prior to
consideration of this site for wetland creation, subsurface hydrologic characteristics would need to be
documented and groundwater elevations determined through a wetland reconnaissance of the
property during the growing season. Given the current dominance of blackberry throughout this
area, significant improvement in vegetation community structure and diversity is achievable.
Significant improvement in wildlife habitat can also be achieved that can be linked directly to the
greater Mill Creek/Springbrook Creek riparian habitat corridor.
This parcel is located within the City of Kent, therefore, purchase of the property by the City of
Tukwila or an agreement between the two cities would need to be established for development of the
parcel as a wetland mitigation site.
City of Tukwila Wetland WL12 Mitigation Site
The Wetland 12 site is located to the north of South 180th Street and west of the UPRR tracks and
the Interurban Trail (Figure 13). An existing mitigation area is located on the south side of this
wetland immediately beyond the study area boundary on a privately owned parcel. A portion of this
area is currently undeveloped and may be available for wetland creation immediately adjacent to the
existing wetland mitigation area. A determination of the acreage available for mitigation would
need to be determined through site reconnaissance with permission from the property owner.
Visual observation of the existing mitigation area from the Interurban Trail suggests that sufficient
subsurface hydrology may be present to expand the existing wetland area within the parcel.
Significant increase in wetland functions could be achieved by introducing shrub -scrub and forested
vegetation community structure into the existing mitigation area that is consistent with other
vegetation community patches within Wetland 12. Improvement in wildlife habitat can also be
achieved that can be linked to the existing wetland and to the wetlands on the east side of the
Interurban Trail. One benefit of using this site is that compensatory mitigation for the impacted
portions of Wetland A and Wetland C could potentially be achieved within the City of Tukwila's
jurisdictional boundary.
11.0 CONCEPTUAL WETLAND CREATION PLANTING PLAN
The most desirable option for wetland mitigation is creation of one large wetland rather than several
small isolated wetlands. Ideally, the created wetland would incorporate at least one shallow,
seasonal open water feature that can provide seasonal amphibian breeding and rearing habitat, and
at least two vegetation classes, such as a herb and scrub -shrub layer. A mosaic of created vegetative
communities would result in a net increase in wetland functions over their current levels, and may
increase the cumulative functional value of the adjacent sensitive areas due to the greater diversity
of vegetation and habitat structure. A detailed wetland mitigation and planting plan would be
developed once the preferred wetland mitigation site is selected.
If the wetland is created adjacent to or in close proximity to other wetlands and /or the stream
corridor, wildlife habitat fragmentation would be avoided and maintenance and monitoring
programs would be more efficient and cost - effective.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
32
BERGERIABAM, A00084
December 2000
i�' }:.,.tYei rl<.s� a. ��.i ...�Ys�iC.Y / ik.il'�'.H'i�YJw. e y���r .. � � � bYF
i5!
Y n
•••••••••••"‘,..
Not to Scale
' PZ 17 . 1 % ) ` -- -■;';'4g * :
r7.11:,11m-
]. • '
:•:'•••' •
•—
Tukwila
Wetland
WL12
A-04*
• r
4 *.
44:
:
SOUth Street • , Wetiandt
B
1
1;cri, -,4f1
A '
5:'!*
North
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers 1999
City of Tukwila Wetland WL1 2
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 13
•••••••••••
I
Within the created wetland and buffer areas, shrubs and trees would be planted in groups designed
to duplicate and supplement the plant communities in the existing wetland areas to be filled and, if
applicable, in the adjacent wetland areas. Planting in the wetland creation area would be done by
hand or using small mechanized equipment that would not compact soils. Within the created
wetland, a variety of native tree, shrub, and emergent species will be planted at appropriate
elevations with respect to seasonal water levels. Plant species to be used in all mitigation would be
•
commercially available from local sources and native to the Puget Sound region. The created =
wetland would, at a minimum, be a Type 2 wetland, and would have a 50 -foot buffer as required by re L
the City of Tukwila.
J
U
CO
12.0 LIMITATIONS w w
J ♦-
Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope of work, BERGER/ABAM warrants that this uj w
w0
study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, 2
including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed, as
outlined in the Methodology section. The results and conclusions of this report represent the
authors best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the City of Tukwila, the d
City of Renton, and the City of Kent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No H w
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. z H
I— O
z I-
w
w
U �
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., D.R. Smith, and R.E. Young, "Wetland Evaluation Technique Q H
(WET), Volume II: Methodology," Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, w w
Vicksburg, MS, 1987. H v
u -O
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements - A tlj
Review. Adolfson Associates, Inc. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 23, No. 5, 0
September- October 1994. P
13.0 REFERENCES
Cooke, Sarah. 1996. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi - Quantitative Assessment Methodology,
Draft User's Manual. Cooke Scientific Services. May, 1996. 27 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Publ. FWS /OBS-
79/31. 131 p.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequegnat, B.M. James, F.J. Genson, and R.E. Defenbaugh, Impacts of
Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States," EPA - 600/3- 76 -45,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 1976.
1 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendixes.
Federal Register. 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal
Sites of Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, pp. 85352- 85353, U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
34
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
Z
Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs
of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p. 31810, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Federal Register. 1986. CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206 - 41260, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Friday, L.E., `The Diversity of Macroinvertebrate and Macrophyte Communities in Ponds."
Freshwater Biol. 18:87 -104, 1987.
Fryer, G. "Acidity and Species Diversity in Freshwater Crustacean Fauna," Freshwater Biol. 10:41-
45, 1980.
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1997. Ecosystems Technical Memorandum: Tacoma - to-
Seattle Commuter Rail Project. Prepared for Adolfson Associates, Inc. and the Regional
Transit Authority. October 30, 1997.
Herron, R.C. 1985. Phosphorus dynamics in Dingle Marsh, Idaho. PhD Dissertation, Utah State
University, Logan, UT.
Horner, Richard R., S.S. Cooke, K.O. Richter, A.L. Azous, L.R. Reinelt, B.L. Taylor, K.A. Ludwa, and
M. Valentine. 1996. Wetlands and urbanization: implications for the future. Chapter 15. Puget
Sound Wetlands & Stormwater Management Research Program.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press, Seattle, WA.
Jones & Stokes, Inc. 1996. City of Renton Wetland Inventory Update. Prepared for the City of
Renton. Seattle, WA.
City of Kent. 1993 Kent City Code. Adopted May 19, 1993.
City of Kent. 1996. Wetland Inventory. City of Kent Geographic Information System. Printed June
20, 1996.
King County. 1993. Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects in the Riverine Environments of King
County. King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division,
Seattle, WA. June, 1993.
Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp.,
Baltimore, MD.
Mockler, Anna. 1998. Sensitive Area Mitigation Guidelines. King County Department of
Development and Environmental Services, Land Use Services Divisions, December 29, 1998.
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rpt. 88(24). 244 p.
City of Renton. 1991. City of Renton Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. Renton, WA.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
35
f
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
r Rya. zir�.('^ �` unUSxX• a, i=SLa� iZ; v,Ic2a: o.4 4:44. ' : u sGtsM1 -•
1
Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation with the National
Technical committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
City of Renton. 1992. Critical Areas Inventory, City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors.
Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates in association with R.W. Beck and Associates.
Bellevue, WA.
City of Renton. 1992. Critical Areas Maps. Long Range Planning, Planning/Building Public Works,
Technical Services. Renton, WA.
City of Renton. 1998. Title IV, City of Renton Building Regulations.
Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
City of Tukwila. 1990. Sensitive Areas Maps.
City of Tukwila. 1997. Tukwila Municipal Code.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual. Publication 96 -94. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Olympia, WA.
Welch, E.B. "Ecological Effects of Waste Water." Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1980.
Ziser, S.W., "Seasonal Variations in Water Chemistry and Diversity of the Phytophilic
Macroinvertebrates of Three Swamp Communities in Southeastern Louisiana," Southwest
Nat. 23:545 -562, 1978.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
36
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
APPENDIX A
LIST OF PLANT SPECIES FOUND IN THE PROJECT AREA
z
w
6
JU
00
U.
wW
J �
WO
J
u
n
=d
I-w
Z=
F-
F- O
Z F-
W
UU
'O -
CI 1-
W
_
U
Z
W
U
I.
O ~'
z
Scientific Name
Acer macrophyllum
Alnus rubra
Betula papiryfera
Malus fusca
Populus balsamifera
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Robinia pseudoacacia
Sorbus aucuparia
Thuja plicata
Scientific Name
Cornus stolonifera
Cytisus scoparius
Holodiscus discolor
Prunus spp.
Rubus discolor
Salix lasiandra
Salix sitchensis
Sambucus racemosa
Spiraea douglasii
Symphoricarpos albus
Scientific Name
Cirsium vulgare
Equisetum arvense
Galium aparine
Hypericum perforatum
Iris pseudacorus
Lotus corniculatus
Marah oreganus
Plantago major
Polygonum amphibium
Polygonum cuspidatum
Ranunculus repens
Solanum dulcamara
Tanacetum vulgare
Taraxacum officinale
Veronica americana
Common Name
big -leaf maple
red alder
paper birch
Pacific crabapple
black cottonwood
Douglas -fir
black locust
mountain ash
westem red cedar
Common Name
red -osier dogwood
Scot's broom
ocean spray •
Plum (ornamental)
Himalayan blackberry
Pacific willow
Sitka willow
red elderberry
Douglas' spiraea
snowberry
Common Name
bull thistle
field horsetail
bedstraw
common St. Johns wort
yellow flag
birdsfoot- trefoil
bigroot
common plantain
water smartweed
Japanese knotweed•
creeping buttercup
climbing nightshade
common tansy
dandelion
American brooklime
WIS
FACU
FAC
FAC*
FACW
FAC
FACU
FACU
NL
FAC
FACW
NL
NL
CULT
FACU
FACW+
FACW
FACU
FACW
FACU
WIS
FACU
. FAC
FACU
NL
OBL
FAC
NL
FACU+
OBL
NI
FACW
FAC+
NI
FACU
OBL
r GRASSES R S t( ... A1VD`s
Scientific Name
Agropyron repens
Agrostis tenuis
Festuca arundinacea
Glyceria elata
Holcus lanatus
Juncus effiisus
Phalaris arundinacea
Typha latifolia
Verbascum blattaria
Common Name
quackgrass
colonial bentgrass
tall fescue
tall mannagrass
common velvetgrass
soft rush
reed canarygrass
common cat -tail
moth mullein
• 1 •S
FAC -
FAC
FAC -
FACW+
FAC
FACW
FACW
OBL
UPL
APPENDIX B
STUDY AREA WETLAND DATA FORMS
Z
if' Z
re W
W 0.
JU
U0
co 0.
W I
J I'
LL.
WO
2
J
W
� d
z�
Z I-
W
• w
U D
O -
• 1—.
WW
IL 0
W..
0
z
t I
•
Lte
Applican Application Project ,
Name: Irk 1 1j tut (c4. Number: Name: s I $b 9-
State: County: 14IY14 Legal Description: Township:2 3'J Range: 4
Date: .1-111p(1?) Plot No.: 2) P - I Section: 2(
Gleyed: Yes 'r No
Hydric soils: Yes
DATA FORM 1'
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species vith observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
•
1. SttLu St 1 c (Lc ( GW 7. -r . 1.1 '4) Ct'4. o .L
' 2. p(}C1 l.Lt_; Ca T r ! ' 6 v-• 8. 11411 Lt3r1 hrt ay),?ItIt ?IUP 08
3. t. -•9. (-6 etbt.dtt.t.s
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines llt.t 14 C VeVtLe �r1L
4. (t1e et .t.:31rlSt.t W CAA - ) 10.
5. 11.
6. 12.
S of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: kn . Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: - - 1 1 ! / 7 s ' •t {at..t
Soil
Series and phase: Wnr)th + -c!!'r S► On hydric soils list? Yes ✓ ; No
Mottled: Yes ✓ ; No
n
Mottle color: 1 1 1 Ye''18 ; Matrix color: I0 ` te, `f/1 itisk A't 10
C • A >r c9nti Aj 5 / al- s i d 0 c " •
Other indicators: L�(1� 1 No ; Basis: , t , et...t.•, s C.41r7Y>to rit e-t� ) Y e6-441
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes • ; No v''. Depth of standing water: •
Saturated soils: Yes ✓ ; No Depth to saturated soil: rV7C-t ,+ 4o SaiEct
Other indicators :_/ 1.k.)s'2;\( Ott }.4) e.,
Wetland hydrology: Yes t< ; No v Basis: , Ein1t► 14 r.I`
Atypical situation: Yes ; No
Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓-- No
Wetland Determination: Wetland
Comments:
� {:L'• . t�,• ��L.t. bl:;;tt';:4—
Nonwetland
Determined by: k r
•
Applicant
Name: CU
State: Lu
Date:
Soil
Comments:
County: le-I ►'1c.
Plot No.
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Application
Number:
Project
Name: S ! Sb'f - 5f-
Legal Description: Township:2 3)J Range: 1G
T)P Pt Section: 2S
Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only lor 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees
Herbs
1 . 7 . TA e..0 4 Y ►1 0 t< p Y�
2. 8. U�� Cl h t �2 C t t n
3. 9.
U�
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
4% S ty rn e titC':.t. 0:t tp S n t ,bu s 5n C.0 10.
5 1YI t rA. C c'. yp. C. L) 11.
6. 12.
2 of species that are.OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: D . Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No ✓. Basis: L•t cr•gfin_
Series and phase: On hydric soils list? Yes
Mottled: Yes ; No ✓ • Mottle color: ; Matrix color:
Cleyed: Yes No L Other indicators:
Hydric soils: Yes No __ ✓; Basis:
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No ✓ Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils: Yes ; No ✓. Depth to
Other indicators:
Wetland hydrology: Yes U No
Atypical situation: Yes ; No
Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Determination: Wetland
Basis:
saturated soil:
Determined by:
; Nonwetland
" 1 , 1 e :
1 o
AJz
N�—
,�::t.. �s,....+vE.Si.:. a. �iti! v_ : 7�:�'.��i+'Ci:ti..v >c:•is2a:t.a'. .:':fbis.'.Ck"�t,1z:�.�* _�V.Y;
t
�Je
•
Applicant
Name: Li L eV. "i.e Lt1t ( L�
State: (:1)t� County: VI n5
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Application
Number:
Project
Name: S /SO HI 5f
Legal Description: Township: 23 M Range: 4E
Date: =01q% Plot No.: —OP- 13 -)
Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations vith an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
1. 7. ?kalarIS a iuwj t .nace
2. 8. . r:l aY•TilltUiuW1 06t-
3 . 9. rx ace:. In. o f-e A u s jot.
Saplings /shrubs. Woody vines
4. ....try‘ be-Law (ac/2vli V'►4CU 10. %
5. 2u [014S cLt.: C nt at- f'AC U 11.
6. CO ( rn DS ' S4Q IO7• c.e.v . �'1 CA) `,�_i .-- b(v a , Ai t .A r (
Z of species that are OBL, FACW, and /or PAC: 3 /5 Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes ✓ No Basis: I nLt:ea. -01_
Soil
Series and phase: Li)trclr w):P0 StE ^. On hydric soils list? Yes ; No
Mottled: Yes ; No ✓ . Mottle color: ; Matrix color: N ngAt. .
Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators:
Hydric soils: Yes ✓ No ; Basis:
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No v"" Depth of
Saturated soils: Yes ✓ ; No Depth to
Other indicators: ribs er:•' Or'r.. ,
v
Wetland hydrology: Yes ✓ ; No
Atypical situation: Yes ; No ✓
Normal Circumstances? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Determination: Wetland ✓
Comments:
.� v
standing vater:
. Basis: S441if_1i■.^.+,.
Determined by:
Section: c1�
saturated soil: 5uf0Aeo
; Nonvetland
iACdw
( o
'
_J
Vf►M�V7�70 17: LY t\Gl l r1 ri .a.rm ,
5 .
4 Applicant
! ' Hama: CCh Ch i "` + i+1 Nusber:
State County:* Legal Description:
Date: - `9 n Plot No.: t P� 1
Vegetation (list the three doa.nant species in each vegetation layer (S if
only 1 or.2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed :morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator
Species Status Species
Ts • 'v r-�nL ` �
.,.� Herbs ``�
i ( Cs 9�W r t47. 1VKTA Cr("- 1 .
2. 0(8. .
11.;c`^�r - {PtJ:lj ,rr! cot' ov-
3. 9.
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
.rf �tAJS c�► S L��l.•r('' - . - fZ MC ! O .
6
I of species that
Cloyed: Yes _ No Other indicator.:
Wetland hydrology: Yes _ ; 10 lasts:
Atypical situation: Yam ; NoV
Normal Circumstances' TesX No
Wetland Deterieina'fton: Wetland
Coements:
OCT 5 '98 16:25
11.
12.
are OIL, VACW, and /or PAC:
DATA PONY 1
WEn,AND DETERMINATION
)(
L VO # C J. Co
Project,,
l
Name:
Township:
Section:
Other indicators:
Indicator
Status
Hydrophycic vegetation: Yes Ho Iasi.:
Hvdtic soils: Yes x No ; Basis:
Nonwetland
Soil
Series and phase:op+a•N►t -d. 'i On hydric soils list' Yes ; Ho
Mottlad: Yea x" ; No Mottle color: I" il--; f,. ; Matrix co lor: *- Lj /�
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes No . Depth of standing eater:
Saturated soils: Tes < ; 2io . Depth to saturated soil' ) i ':
Other indicators:
Detarained by: fiN ? N ( FX
206 721 3428 PAGE.002
j��P.' %;i:.i; »«.;.x:'c- «:�?icii:iiv'. iii:: ti.-f.: s(': L.', i' ,:.:'•'si.a..4`.YsY±.�.."+S.li�:
yip
ti
St .. a ...
LVV / L J1L../ r V .7
Date:: r �
Hydric soils: Yes
OCT 5.'98 15:26
DATA FORM 1
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applies te _ _ _ w Application Project
Nuaber: Nam.:
flaps t
State: 1/V� County: Legal Description: Township' Rana,'
Plot Mo.: D - Section:
Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if
only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known
physiological adaptations with an asterisk.
Indicator Indicator
Species Status Species Status
Trees Herbs
1 . . c...-
2.
3.
Saplings /shrubs Woody vines
. 4 .V_,cj,.,.; 0.5 (}7 t C L) 10.
3. 11.
6. 12.
2 of species that ere OIL. FACV, and /or PAC :. Other indicators:
8.Ctr1S1*h - t / ver'l Sf W'1.
9. Ps4f-tAtAs FAc....kd
Hydrophytie vegetation: Yee, No . saris:
Soil
Series and phase:r,..0)O10J/Lit. On hydric soils list? Yes ; No
Mottled: Yes ; No %1 Mottle color:: Matrix color: ) 11 ,L3
Gleyed: Yes No X Other indicators:
Ho� Danis:
Hydrology
Inundated: Yes ; No)( ,• Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils: Yes ; llo Depth to saturated soil:
Other indicators:
Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No . basis:
Atypical situation: Yes ; No
Normal Circumstances? Ye _ No
Wetland Determination: Wetland ; Nonwrtland
Convents:
Determined by: kC. '1 11I'• -t r tf"
206 721 3428 PAGE.003
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3
3 pts
Flood/ Storm
Water Control
points: 9
(max 15)
X
X
X_
size < 5 acres
riverinc or lakeshore wetland
<10% forested cover
unconstrained outlet
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
—
size 5 -10 acres
mid - sloped wetland
10 -30% forested cover
semi - constrained
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
X
X
—
size > 10 acres
depressions,
> 30 % forested cover
culvert/bermed outlet
location in upper 1/3 of
the drainage
Base Flow/
Ground Water
Support
points: 11
(max 15)
X
X _
—
—
size < 5 acres
riverine or lakeshore wetland
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
temporarily flooded or saturated
no flow - sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
—
—
—
size 5 -10 acres
mid - sloped wetland
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
seasonally or semi-
permanently flooded
or saturated
low flow-sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
X
—
X_
X_
size > 10 acres
depressions,
located in upper 1/3 of
the drainage
permanently flooded or
saturated, or
intermittently exposed
high flow- sensitive
populations contiguous
with site in highly
permeable strata
Erosion/
Shoreline
Protection
points: N/A
(max 9)
—
_
—
sparse grass/herbs or no veg
along OHWM
wetland extends < 30 m from
OEIWM
highly developed shoreline or
subcatchment
—
—
—
sparse wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends 30 -60
m from OHWM
moderately developed
shoreline or
subcatchment
—
_
—
dense wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends >200
m from OHWM
undeveloped shoreline
or subcatchment
Water Quality
Improvement
points: 11
(max 12)
_
_
rapid flow throueh site
< 50% veg cover
upstream in basin from wetland
i s undeveloped
holds < 25% overland runoff
X
_
_
moderate flow throuch
50-80% cover
#50 % of basin
upstream from
wetland is developed
holds 25 -50%
overland runoff
X
X_
X_
slow flow throueh site
> 80% veg cover
> 50% of basin
upstream from wetland
is developed
holds > 50% overland
runoff
3 "
• a
1
3
Wetland # A
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - Quantitative Performance Assessment
Location: Section 36 Township 23N_ Range 4E_
Staff KF Date 3/17/99
N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation C -1
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3
3 pts
Natural
Biological
Support
points: 25
(max 36)
X _
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
X_
—
size < 5 acres
ag land, low veg structure
seasonal surface water
one habitat type
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
low plant diversity (< 6 species)
> 50% invasive species
low primary productivity
low organic accumulation
low organic export
few habitat features
buffers very disturbed
isolated from upland habitats
—
X
—
—
X_
—
X
X
—
—
—
X
size 5 -10 acres
2 level veg
permanent surface water
two habitat types
PAB POW PEM PSS
PFO EST
moderate plant diversity
(7 -15 species)
10 to 50% invasive
moderate primary
moderate organic
moderate organic export
some habitat features
buffers slightly disturbed
partially connected to
—
—
X
X_
—
X
—
—
—
X
—
—
size > 10 acres
high veg structure
open water pools
3 3 habitat types
PAB POW PEM
PSS PFO EST
high plant diversity
( >15 species)
< 10% invasive
high primary
high organic
high organic export
many habitat features
buffers not disturbed
well connected to
Overall
Habitat
Functions
points: 4
(max 9)
X_
—
X
size < 5 acres
low habitat diversity
low sanctuary or refuge
—
X
_
size 5 -10 acres
moderate habitat
moderate sanctuary or
—
—
—
size > 10 acres
high habitat diversity
high sanctuary or
Specific
Habitat
Functions
points: 11
(max 12)
—
—
N/A
—
—
low invertebrate habitat
low amphibian habitat
low fish habitat
low mammal habitat
low bird habitat
—
—
—
X —
—
moderate invertebrate
moderate amphibian
moderate fish habitat
moderate mammal
moderate bird habitat
X
X
—
—
X
high invertebrate
high amphibian
high fish habitat
high mammal habitat
high bird habitat
Cultural/
Sociocco-
nomic
points: 14
(max 21)
—
—
X_
X_
—
X_
—
low educational opportunities
low aesthetic value
lacks commercial fisheries,
agriculture, renewable resources
lacks historical or archeological
resources
lacks passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned
not near open space
X_
—
—
—
—
—
—
moderate educational
opportunities
moderate aesthetic value
moderate commercial
fisheries, agriculture,
renewable resources
historical or
archeological site
some passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned, some
public access
some connection to open
—
X
—
—
X_
—
X
high educational
opportunities
high aesthetic value
high commercial
fisheries, agriculture,
renewable resources
important historical
or archeological site
many passive and
active recreational
opportunities
unrestricted public
access
directly connected to
F
4 .
Notes:
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - Quantitative Performance Assessment
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
C -2
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
'ii i�::Yc+litia c5t . ;szx tvi�. v ifi w Y+:w'.wit a>:y:crint»n6.'r, ..ca '44.1
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3
3 pts
Flood/ Storm
Water Control
points: 9
(max 15)
X
X
X —
size < 5 acres
riverine or lakeshore wetland
<10% forested cover
unconstrained outlet
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
_
size 5 -10 acres
mid - sloped wetland
10 -30% forested cover
semi - constrained
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
X
X
—
size > 10 acres
depressions,
> 30 % forested cover
culvert/benned outlet
location in upper 1/3
of the drainage
Base Flow/
Ground Water
Support
points: 9
(max 15)
X
X_
X_
_
size < 5 acres
riverine or lakeshore wetland
located in lower 1/3 of the
drainage
temporarily flooded or saturated
no flow - sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
_
_
_
size 5 -10 acres
mid - sloped wetland
located in middle 1/3
of the drainage
seasonally or semi-
permanently flooded
or saturated
low flow - sensitive fish
populations on -site or
downstream
X
_
_
X_
size > 10 acres
depressions,
located in upper 1/3 of
the drainage
permanently flooded
or saturated, or
intermittently exposed
high flow - sensitive
populations
contiguous with site in
highly permeable
strata
Erosion/
Shoreline
Protection
points: N/A
(max 6)
_
N/A
_
sparse grass/herbs or no veg
along OHWM
wetland extends < 30 m from
OHWM
highly developed shoreline or
subcatchment
_
_
—
sparse wood or veg
along OHWM
wetland extends 30 -60
m from OHWM
moderately developed
shoreline or
subcatchment
_
_
_
dense wood or veg
along O1-IWM
wetland extends >200
m from OHWM
undeveloped shoreline
or subcatchment
Water Quality
Improvement
points: 9
(max 12)
—
X_
rapid flow throueh site
< 50% veg cover
upstream in basin from wetland
is undeveloped
holds < 25% overland runoff
X
_
_
moderate flow throueh
50 -80% cover
#50% of basin
upstream from
wetland is developed
holds 25 -50%
overland runoff
X
X_
—
slow flow throueh site
> 80% veg cover
> 50% of basin
upstream from
wetland is developed
holds > 50% overland
runoff
Wetland # C
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - Quantitative Performance Assessment
Location: Section 36_ Township 23N_ Range 4E
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Staff
N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available
C -3
KF
Date 3/17/99
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
4 ,• .;ar S f,� wzaL sr 3 s �t wr.t4A4e6 60 Z '41 g9nt,taza.443
*
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2
2 pts
Group 3 3 pts
Natural
Biological
Support
points: 12
(max 36)
X _
x
X
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
X _
X_
size < 5 acres
ag land, low veg structure
seasonal surface water
one habitat type
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
low plant diversity (< 6 species)
> 50% invasive species
low primary productivity
low organic accumulation
low organic export
few habitat features
buffers very disturbed
isolated from upland habitats
_
_
_
_
_
_
—
—
—
—
_
_
size 5 -10 acres
2 level veg
permanent surface water
two habitat types
PAB POW PEM PSS
PFO EST
moderate plant diversity
(7 -15 species)
10 to 50% invasive
moderate primary
moderate organic
moderate organic export
some habitat features
buffers slightly disturbed
partially connected to
_ size > 10 acres
_ high veg structure
_ open water pools
_ 3 3 habitat types
PAB POW PEM
PSS PFO EST
_ high plant diversity
( >15 species)
— < 10% invasive
— high primary
— high organic
_ high organic export
— many habitat
_ buffers not
_ well connected to
Overall
Habitat
Functions
points: 3
(max 9)
X _
X_
X_
size < 5 acres
low habitat diversity
low sanctuary or refuge
_
_
_
size 5 -10 acres
moderate habitat
moderate sanctuary or
_ size > 10 acres
_ high habitat
_ high sanctuary or
Specific
Habitat
Functions
points: 4
(max 12)
X_
X_
N/A
X _
X_
low invertebrate habitat
low amphibian habitat
low fish habitat
low mammal habitat
low bird habitat
_
_
_
—
—
moderate invertebrate
moderate amphibian
moderate fish habitat
moderate mammal
moderate bird habitat
_ high invertebrate
_ high amphibian
_ high fish habitat
_ high mammal
— high bird habitat
Cultural/
Socioeco-
nomic
points: 8
(max 21)
X
X_
X_
X_
X_
X_
_
low educational opportunities
low aesthetic value
lacks commercial fisheries,
agriculture, renewable resources
lacks historical or archeological
resources
lacks passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned
not near open space
_
_
_
_
_
_
X_
moderate educational
opportunities
moderate aesthetic value
moderate commercial
fisheries, agriculture,
renewable resources
historical or
archeological site
some passive and active
recreational opportunities
privately owned, some
public access
some connection to open
_ high educational
opportunities
_ high aesthetic value
_ high commercial
fisheries,
agriculture,
renewable
resources
_ important historical
or archeological
site
_ many passive and
active recreational
opportunities
_ unrestricted public
access
_ directly connected
Notes:
Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi - Quantitative Performance Assessment
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
C -4
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
December 2000
+'.iyS Cra;Jai32.
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
tam.
J
South 180th Street Grade Separation
ADDENDUM TO FINAL WETLANDS STUDY
Prepared by BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc.
January 2001
The purpose of this addendum is to provide the City of Tukwila with an update to the South 180th
Street grade separation design in relation to the wetland mitigation being developed for this project
as documented in the SEPA Environmental Checklist dated 15 October 2000. Sections within the
Final Wetlands Study where clarifications, revisions, or additional details are available are
documented below.
SECTION 6.0 WETLAND IMPACTS
The Wetland A buffer that will be filled has been recalculated to 0.9 acre. The wetland buffer impact
was recalculated to reflect impacts to the actual functioning buffer. The new calculated wetland
buffer impact area does not include the area that is currently developed and not technically classified
as functioning buffer.
Figure 10 is revised as attached with the recalculated Wetland buffer.
SECTION 10.0 WETLAND MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Section 10.2 Potential Wetland Creation Site Alternatives
Out of the three potential wetland mitigation sites investigated, only the Herrera wetland site (the
City of Renton property located east of the BNSF railroad) is functional as wetland mitigation.
SECTION 11.0 CONCEPTUAL WETLAND CREATION PLANTING PLAN
Figure 11, which describes the potential wetland mitigation area, is supplemented with the attached
Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Herrera Wetland Site. Figure 11 is further supplemented with an
attached plan that depicts the wetland mitigation area fitting within the City of Renton parcel.
Respectfully submitted
BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.
Final Wetlands Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
D -1
BERGER/ABAM, A00084
January 2001
5 - +.Y$ti':.vyh}LN.'ii3.'tS.ti.e ti.SLLYdLT'w.i::ta °,
Job No. A00084
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Final Wildlife Study
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
Submitted by
BERGER/ABAA4
E N G I N E E R S I N C.
July 2000
1..,;;;Mrze•msrrAvt.re-..z.m.V.?-•=r+V
L �
•
FINAL WILDLIFE STUDY
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
July 2000
Submitted by
BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc.
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300
Federal Way, Washington 98003 -2600
Job No. A00084
;
,
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i 7
; .
II
SECTION PAGE ce 6
: 3 1.0 Introduction 1 --I 0
0 0
CO o
cn Lu
2.0 Site Description 1 W i
n
...1 I._
3.0 Methodology 1 L u 0
2
`1 3.1 Review of Existing Information 4 g 5
3.2 Field Surveys 4
u)
I a
--A 4.0 Findings 4 ' U-
I
: Z I-
-4 I--
4.1 Priority Habitats and Species Data Base 5 z 0 1.--.
4.2 On-Site Investigations 5 ILI Lu
2 D
M C)
i 0
5.0 Species of Concern 8
01--
6.0 Wildlife Habitat Assessment 8 ui u j
= o
I-
-1 r=
7.0 Impacts to Wildlife 8 L I 0
z
Li
1 i
8.0 Mitigation 9 0 (/)
0 I-
9.0 Regulatory Implications 11 Z
....1 10.0 References 11
FIGURES
Figure 1— Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Project Study Area Map
Figure 3 — Wildlife Habitat Observation Areas
Figure 4 — Habitat Impacts
APPENDIXES
Appendix A — Wildlife Species Expected in King County
Appendix B — Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Study Area
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
FINAL WILDLIFE STUDY
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
July 2000
'
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a wildlife study performed by BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc.
(BERGER/ABAM) for the South 180th Street Grade Separation project. The project is located at the
intersection of the northwest corner of Kent, the southwest corner of Renton, and the eastern
boundary of Tukwila, Washington, in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks (in Township 23N, Range 4E, north half of Section 36). A
vicinity map is provided as Figure 1. Along South 180th Street, the study area extends 200 feet
north and south of the roadway from 72nd Avenue South on the west side to 80th Avenue South on
the east side. Along the BNSF and UPRR tracks, the study area extends 1,000 feet north and south
of the tracks and within 100 feet of the railroad right -of -way (ROW). A map of the study area is
provided as Figure 2.
The project proponent, the City of Tukwila, is proposing a grade separation between South 180th
Street and the BNSF and UPRR tracks for the purposes of improved public safety.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
Land uses within the project study area include a mix of commercial, office park, and light industrial
uses. Other land uses on the north side of South 180th Street include an undeveloped property
located immediately east of the BNSF ROW; and the proposed Oaksdale Business Campus site east
of the undeveloped property and extending to 80th Avenue South, which has been cleared and is
currently undergoing site cleanup for contaminated soils. During field investigations, construction
was underway on the south side of the roadway on the Creekside Storage Park, a public storage site
immediately east of the BNSF tracks. The Interurban Trail, Puget Sound Energy power lines, fiber
optic cable, and a gas line are located on the west side of the project study area.
Springbrook Creek flows from northeast in the eastern portion of the project study area. Mill Creek
flows northeast under a bridge over the BNSF tracks to a confluence with Springbrook Creek in the
southeastern portion of the site (see Figure 2). The project study area is generally flat, with elevated
grades for the roadway and the railroad tracks.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The wildlife study was conducted according to Wildlife Study Guidelines for SEPA promulgated by
King County Resource Planning (1993). These guidelines provide consistent, standard, and
quantitative methods for describing impacts to wildlife resources. According to the guidelines,
projects less than 10 acres requiring a grading permit and that contain priority habitat or species
require a habitat survey and /or a threatened and endangered species study. The South 180th Street
Grade Separation project contains no threatened or endangered species; however, it does contain
wetlands and riparian corridors, areas considered priority habitats in King County. General surveys
of wildlife habitat and wildlife use were conducted on June 20, July 9, 10, and 16, 1998 within the
project study area.
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
1
July 2000
.,. d ' a......." �, . a✓ i: �' ,�:� '4 a : .u1 . x%.:itix Si;[i
North
518
Sea-Tac
International
Airport
Tukwila
1161
S 212th
Kent \
1161
167
Renton
Project
Area
S 180th
167
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998
Vicinity Map
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 1
Project Area
itillM\ & -tee
•
•
r
1I
id
1 V
Ii
25
Tukwila
• •••
• ••
1
'
•
Not to Scale
470
North
Source:
U.S.G.S. Renton, Washington Quadrangle, 1994
Project Study Area
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 2
w
t.
Ay 21
z
a I
~ W
J0
00
W=
U) u_
u O
2
uQ
= d
w
Z =
W
• W
U o
oI-
W W
H
O
W Z
U ( i )
O ~
Z
3.1 Review of Existing Information
Prior to conducting field evaluations, existing literature, maps, and other materials were reviewed to
identify potential wildlife species and habitats within the study area. This information included the
following.
z
• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Data Base H z
(1998)
re w n
• National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton Quadrangle (USFW, 1988) 0 0
N
• Hunn, E.L. 1982. Birding in Seattle and King County. Site Guide and Annotated List. Audubon co w
So ciety Trailside Series J
H
cow
w
• Lower Puyallup Watershed Management Committee. 1992. Lower Puyallup Watershed Phase 1 2
Report. March 1992 g 5
u_j
• Corkran, C.C. and C. Thorns. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. = 0
Lone Pine Publishing. Redmond, Washington F- _
zF.
• Kricher, J.C. and G. Morrison. 1993. A field guide to the ecology of western forests. Peterson z O
w
w
• Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Third 0
edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, New York 01--
w w
• National Geographic Society. 1994. Birds of North America. Second Edition ►_-
u_ g'
• Stokes, D. and Stokes, L. 1996. Stokes Field Guide to Birds. Western Region. Little, Brown, and Ili
Z
U —
H=
O ~
Field Guides Series
Co., Boston
3.2 Field Surveys
In addition to reviewing the literature, general surveys of wildlife habitat and wildlife use were
conducted on June 20, July 9, 10, and 16, 1998 within the project study area. Direct and indirect
observations (scat, nests, tracks, vocalizations) were made of vertebrate species in these habitats,
mainly concentrating on avian and amphibian species. Special habitat features, such as snags and
ponds, were also noted. Amphibians were observed through lifting of rocks where appropriate. No
formal transects were established, as they were not required. For bird species, one observation
station was established within each of four habitat types identified within the project study area or
vicinity. Observations were conducted at each station for 10 minutes during each site visit, starting
at 6 a.m.
4.0 FINDINGS
The following sections describe the results of the literature search, existing information review, and
the field investigations conducted within the project study area and vicinity.
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
4
July 2000
z
4.1 Priority Habitats and Species Data Base
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species Data
Base was examined for endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species; species of concern; and
priority habitats within the project area. Priority species include all state endangered, threatened, z
sensitive, and candidate species, vulnerable animal aggregations; and those species of recreational,
commercial, or tribal importance that are also vulnerable (WDFW, 1998). . w
Waterfowl, including Canadian geese, canvasbacks, and mallards, have been documented as using 6
the study area. Two great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colonies are within 2 miles of the study area. U O
A bald eagle nest (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is located on Mercer Island north of the study area. u) W
W =
H
U) u_
O
The four different habitat types were identified within the study area and vicinity (Figure 3). • 2
1Q
co �.
=
I— III
Z =
I--
HO
Z I-
4.2 On -Site Investigation
■ Scrub -shrub wetland
• Blackberry shrub /open
• Riparian corridor
• Urban weedy /open area
The following sections discuss these habitat types, the species that were observed during the site
visits, and wildlife species that may use the habitats, but that were not observed. Wildlife use of an
area is dependent upon the richness and diversity of the vegetative community and the proximity of
other habitats. A list of species likely to occur in King and Pierce Counties is included as
Appendix A. Several of these species, such as owls, bitterns, and opposums, may likely be present in
the project area, but remain unobserved due to their nocturnal habits, camouflage, and avoidance of
humans. A list of species observed or heard within the project study area is provided as Appendix B.
Habitat A: Scrub -Shrub Wetland (Station 1)
Scrub -shrub wetlands are wetlands dominated by woody vegetation under 6 meters tall and include
open water. For a more detailed description of the wetlands on the site, see the Wetlands Study
(BERGER /ABAM, 2000).
The scrub -shrub wetlands within the study area are located along the BNSF and UPRR tracks, and
along the Interurban Trail north of South 180th Street. They are characterized by shrub vegetation
dominated by willows and include small ponded areas with open water and emergent vegetation.
Dominant plants in this habitat include Pacific, Scouler, and sitka willow; red alder; broadleaved
cattail; hardhack; reed canarygrass; field horsetail; brooklime; and water smartweed.
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation 5
July 2000
z
4116'
fa
•
• .^ • ..
• t
?
''''''• ' I ' :1 ir
• r . s••■ L . 46,
5 ,.. ....... ' ..... • '
.
6,, ...... II .. • .., ..•
••-- ' - ' ' :
•
r..
••
• :_-
1 -
• .-- ..-.1. ,..•
. - •
m
14
4 ,'••• ' • 1
• •
'•11:j • '
•
•
. .
"••
• .
: • ;;F-
' r.
H abitat
• 4.4.• rea
S .
';r;
-
CC
, •
Habi/af
•
•,. - •
U . • • -
t . . 1 .I•S
_I
1 H
s 7 • ',,j•':
. ic ::::,
,..„...
so el 1 '',.. • - -
r • ••.: 0 ,. , „. 'Ilk‘ ';' , ' _,•:'', t
'; , 1 5.;, '.. , '.."I'ail t ... -:.:,•-•.. .4
• : ,,..,......: . . „. ,
't : K.... ' '' " :,...., ..: ' ":
LEGEND
• Wildlife Observation Stations
... , ve.
, iiif .4 (2
:lit• . . i , ....1 0,4,!..,..
1;:i',:•••• ..
il k,••••• -t,-..,,i • .41 ''''')•••
• , --.'''' ra...',0'.•,".;..-'ir.:7..-, ..,:i.:
,.. • .., ,.,.:r.e..
• ';.-1,' ' ' .
• •
• • • •
•
••■
Station 3
•
e de
•%v.".`
• • ,
x!•: !
- ,e`■:•
So, 100.th,St. - . - -
57
• ••
• ' • • • •••••
11.0
et
/*M
" •
, .“• ;?1,44,c,;
tt •J• .. r-::- , ri
: ^,•1* i
.0 ...• • ' AA'
(f e ijI l l$ : * 4 • ''' ' '/ . %.,' 'J . ,,,, , .,. .., 41 k • ..1
I ■ t' : . .,-• s .
• .Y.'''• • "... '‘ 44 ''' ■i ' Ha itat- -• , •
- _ ,, „ „
. -
...,„..... - -.. ,..- -`,- , ea. u ,.:- • r.
45, • .• • - -';';,- ....t•
- . . , ,,, ,,-
• ' , '' ' 0 „
• * 6 .:.... ''' °'
• •'):
bt•
tat
A
, .11 .. :. ',. : 4P,
?..f
• -4.....:-.. „ : - •
... : . rt ,.,..,,,, . • i .
. . . 1 •
I, .... • -
• # ,.
.• "1 s : ., ,.
I. ime In No i • .. • ,_ 11111,,61 l■ ■I MI •IIIII la Platli; IMI IM IN AN* fm'im II.* '■ 4)1t1111•1111111111"011111Tiflimirjlii"ililliNli
. '" '..r. .. . , : -
--:.. ..: .. • t.)-- ' •
• • ir. - 1 • .
;• - - • •. 01 77,7f... 5•4 1,0
ME In -1-0•1.-.
• ,parm; 'I; • • 41111 mi %riled" lid dtlyeiNII No
• • 4k
P tets,'
•'
VS -;V. Project
. A g 14 '''' ,i P ". ''' • ,..
, ‚5
••
; ..1
■ r.t ' ,,,, • . . e,,.. ‘. k,.k •.• i _',' h• • -- ;
.Nocl......1....ib.,.r.4.1.4..........1.,..a. , : ..;;;=:•w . 4.,',
• ;•.;- ...
tt A
-••• ,
• .. . ....,. 5
, ...z • •,".•: • ,.. • ....‹.. . .;•"?.. •',_,, ; , • .
.-''''.''' ' . - • . ', - A
,.
A, /- , .......„.:6._
''''' ''''''.. .•: ' ..‘,.,vel: 1 1 ;.. f i i .'...:1',2,1-
...
1,1•=7?!. Z.,•-:;"":
4IP
North
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, Inc. 1998
Wildlife Habitat Observation Areas
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 3
Potential wildlife species that may occur here include raccoon, porcupine, striped skunk, Townsend's
vole, song sparrow, American robin, common yellowthroat, willow flycatcher, northwestern
salamander, Pacific chorus frog, and common garter snake.
Actual wildlife or wildlife signs observed or heard during the site investigations include great blue
heron, green heron, American robin, barn swallow, violet -green swallow, willow flycatcher, red-
winged blackbird, American goldfinch, mallard, marsh wren, black- capped chickadee, song sparrow, _
pigeon, cedar waxwing, muskrat, European rabbit, and coyote scat. Several marsh wren nests were W
also observed in the cattails within this habitat.
Habitat B: Blackberry Shrub /Open (Station 2) u) p
cn
This habitat type is located along the Interurban Trail on the south side of South 180th Street. The -' E-
site is comprised primarily by low shrubs and forbs, including Himalayan blackberry, snowberry, O
baldhip rose, nettle, and reed canarygrass. This site contains less structural and species diversity
than the scrub -shrub wetlands, and is more likely to be dominated by human - accustomed species, g 5
such as raccoons and skunks.
d
Wildlife or wildlife signs observed or heard in this habitat during the site investigations include H =
American crow, violet -green swallow, house sparrow, song sparrow, Savannah sparrow, white- ?'—
crowned sparrow, American robin, house finch, black- capped chickadee, willow flycatcher, belted Z O
kingfisher, American goldfinch, European starling, weasel, and European rabbit. A frequent user of
the Interurban Trail reported seeing coyote and beaver as well.
U �
Habitat C: Riparian Corridor (Station 3) p
wW
The dominant plant species on this site are reed canarygrass and willows. Riparian corridors are (=--
known as areas of high species diversity. Approximately 85 percent of Washington's terrestrial t!- p
vertebrate species use riparian habitat for essential life activities (Thomas et al. 1979, Brown 1985), t i i Z
and many researchers also note high avian and amphibian diversity and abundance in these areas.
O~
Wildlife species expected along the riparian corridor include duck species, great blue herons, Z
songbirds, northwestern salamanders, Pacific chorus frogs, and garter snakes. However, diversity of
animal species often parallels diversity of plant species. Because this area contains little plant
diversity, a high diversity of animal species is not expected.
Wildlife observed or heard within this habitat during the site investigations include mallard with
young, song sparrow, European starling, American goldfinch, common yellowthroat, house finch,
violet -green swallow, brown- headed cowbird, and black- capped chickadee. A dead Norway rat was
observed on the roadway just east of the riparian corridor.
Habitat D: Urban Weedy /Open Area (Station 4)
This habitat type is located within the proposed Oaksdale Business Campus on the eastern fringe of
the study area. The site has been cleared and is currently undergoing site cleanup for contaminated
soils under a Washington State Department of Ecology cleanup order. The site is predominantly a
disturbed, open area dominated by weedy, invasive forbs. A few scattered willows and red alder
occur along Springbrook Creek, which flows northeasterly across the site. Plant species at this site
include common tansy, common plantain, Japanese knotweed, bull and Canada thistle, field
horsetail, bedstraw, Klamath weed, birdsfoot treefoil, climbing nightshade, dandelion, red alder, and
Scot's broom.
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
iieas r ,,,,42 "miL wi:
7
July 2000
Due to the disturbed and cleared nature of the site, the predominant wildlife species expected in this
area are those that are human - adapted, such as crows, robins, skunks, raccoons, and some songbirds
at the fringes of the site.
Wildlife or wildlife signs observed or heard in this habitat during the site investigations include
house finch, northern flicker, violet -green swallow, common yellowthroat, song sparrow, house
sparrow, fox sparrow, great blue heron, domestic duck, red - winged blackbird, American robin, barn
swallow, coyote, and common garter snake. A single large cottonwood remains at the site. The tree
contains a nest that is reported to be a red - tailed hawk nest, however, no hawks were sited near the
tree or in the vicinity of the project.
5.0 SPECIES OF CONCERN
Species of concern include those classified by the WDFW (1998) as endangered, threatened,
sensitive, candidate, or monitor. The great blue heron, a state monitor species, was observed within
areas of the study site. There are two great blue heron nesting colonies within 2 miles of the study
site — in the vicinity of Springbrook Springs and in the area of the Black River Corporate Park.
Great blue herons feed on aquatic and marine animals found in shallow water, as well as mice and
voles found in upland fields. Typical foraging areas for great blue herons range from 2.5 to 18 miles
from rookeries. Great blue herons likely use the wetland and streamside areas of the site, as well as
other nearby wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek, and the Green River for
foraging. Management guidelines promulgated by the WDFW (1991) recommend buffer zones
around the periphery of nesting sites varying from 3,280 feet during the nesting season to a year -
round "no activity" zone of 75 feet or greater.
A bald eagle nest site is located on Mercer Island, north of the study area. Bald eagle prey species
include anadromous and warm -water fish, small mammals, carrion, and waterfowl. Bald eagles may
forage in the area of the study site, but are expected to be infrequent visitors due to the small size of
the study area wetlands and the proximity of commercial land uses and traffic. Under the
Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC- 232 -12 -292), site- specific management plans
are recommended for potential impacts to bald eagles.
6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
The wetlands on the site were evaluated for their natural biological support functions. A detailed
description of the wetlands within the project study area is found in the Wetland Study
(BERGER/ABAM, 2000).
The scrub -shrub and riparian corridor habitat areas provide good nesting, resting, and foraging
habitat for a variety of species. Based on observations of species diversity and density, wildlife use
appears to be most intensive within the scrub -shrub and riparian corridor habitats. The remainder
of the study area provides limited wildlife habitat due to the disturbed nature of these habitats.
7.0 IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
'Direct impacts to wildlife are usually associated with habitat destruction and alteration (also see
Vegetation section). Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of construction activity is likely to be
disturbed by noise, dust, and traffic associated with construction activities. However, most of the
construction would occur in areas with high ambient noise levels and traffic volumes (i.e., South
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
8
July 2000
180th Street and the Railroad). Therefore, short -term impacts on wildlife resulting from
construction are not expected to be significant.
The development of four temporary detours, or "shooflies," for the BNSF and UPRR tracks will result
in the filling of a total of 1.09 acres of wetlands within Habitat Area A, and the 0.01 -acre Wetland C
within Habitat Area B (Figure 4). No impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat areas are expected to Z
occur as a result of the roadway and underpass construction. Removal of vegetation within the i z
scrub -shrub wetland within Habitat Area A would reduce the amount of scrub -shrub wetland habitat
available within the immediate project area. Birds and most mammals (i.e., muskrats) would likely
be able to relocate to the adjacent wetland areas on the east and west sides. Smaller animals U O
(i.e., amphibians, reptiles, small rodents) may not be able to migrate out of the impacted area. CO o
Wildlife impacts resulting from the removal of Wetland C are expected to be minimal due to its small
U.1
size. Birds, mammals, and reptiles would easily be able to relocate to adjacent areas. Amphibians
are not expected to use Wetland C, so no impacts are anticipated on amphibian species. 0
w
2
8.0 MITIGATION LL
c d
Mitigation for the loss of wetland areas is described in detail in the South 180th Street Grade I w
Separation Wetland Study (BERGER/ABAM, 2000). The criteria for selecting wetland creation and z
restoration areas include the following considerations. Z O
w
■ A preference for sites located within the same drainage subbasin >
U�
• Sites located within areas with sufficient hydrology to support wetland vegetation and seasonal 0 0 1—
ww
I
I-
amphibian habitat
• The potential for connectivity to existing habitat corridors 1- p
z
Ideally, the mitigation wetlands would be situated so that they form a continuum with adjacent and U
nearby habitat corridors, which can result in a combined net gain in wildlife habitat function for all 0 (—
associated systems. Z
Several mitigation measures may be implemented to reduce or eliminate potentially adverse impacts
on wildlife species, including
• Minimize the extent of vegetation disturbance
■ Revegetate disturbed areas with native vegetation previously identified from the site (i.e., willow
species, grasses) to enhance use of and return to these areas by wildlife
• Schedule construction to avoid impacts on species, such as the bald eagle, great blue heron,
green- backed heron, all of which may use the area
• Where appropriate, implement recommendations described in Management Recommendations
for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species (WDFW, 1991)
• Minimize damage to vegetation and soil compaction from construction equipment
• Avoid the removal of trees and shrubs where possible
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
9
L:
1.4
si?
July 2000
• iWIfK u�. Y�.. .. ..
Not to Scale
North
Source:
BERGER /ABAM Engineers 1999
Habitat Impacts
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 4
Z
�Z
C
D
J O
0
UO
cn
J
U)
W
2
Q _
Q
U O
I cs
� W
Z I
O
z W
2 O
D O
U
O -
O
W
I
F-
u" O
.. Z
W
=
O
Z
•
9.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions to designate Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas for protection. These areas include 1) areas with which endangered,
threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2) habitats and species of local
importance; 3) commercial and recreational shellfish areas; 4) kelp and eelgrass beds, herring and
smelt spawning areas; 5) naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic
beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; 6) waters of the state; 7) lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers
planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; and 8) state natural area preserves and
natural resource conservation areas.
The cities of Renton, Kent, and Tukwila provide protection for fish and wildlife through
sensitive /critical areas ordinances and regulations that protect wetlands and streams /riparian
corridors. However, the habitats that occur within the project area have not been formally
designated by these cities as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
10.0 REFERENCES
Brown, E.R. Technical Editor. 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western
Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.
Corkran, C.C. and C. Thorns. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.
Lone Pine Publishing. Redmond, Washington.
Hunn, E.L. 1982. Birding in Seattle and King County. Site Guide and Annotated List. Audubon
Society Trailside Series. Washington, DC.
King County Resource Planning, Environmental Division. 1993. Wildlife Study Guidelines for
SEPA. Bellevue, Washington.
King County, 1994. The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan. King County Department of
Development and Environmental Services. Bellevue, Washington.
Kricher, J.C. and G. Morrison. 1993. A field guide to the ecology of western forests. Peterson Field
Guides Series.
National Geographic Society. 1994. Birds of North America. Second edition. Washington, DC.
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Third edition.
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, New York.
Stokes, D. and Stokes, L. 1996. Stokes Field Guide to Birds. Western Region. Little, Brown, and Co.,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Priority Habitats and Species Data Base.
Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for
Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. Olympia, Washington.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton Quadrangle.
Washington, DC..
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
11
July 2000
yl�'`Cv.�iw� i^d�cwVi` s�k5
APPENDIX A
WILDLIFE SPECIES EXPECTED IN KING COUNTY
Z
= •
W
Ce
JU
00
ND
W =.
J H
LL
w0
<
�W
Z=
I-0
Z I-
w
U
O -q2
O H.
W W'
=- U
9--•0
.. Z
W
U=
O H.
Z
'BIRDS
Common Name
Scientific Name
American bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
American goldfinch
Carduelis tristis
American kestrel
Falco sparverius
American robin
Turdus migratorius
Arctic tern
Sterna pradisaea
American widgeon
Anas americana
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Band - tailed pigeon
Columba fasciata
Barn swallow
Hirundo rustica
Belted kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyon
Black brant
Branta bernicla
Black - capped chickadee
Parus atricapilus
Black- crowned night heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
Black marlin
Falconidea columbarius
Brandt's cormorant
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Brown - headed cowbird
Molothrus ater
Blue- winged teal
Anas discors
Bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
Bewick's wren
Thryomanes bewickii
Canada goose
Branta canadensis
California quail
Callipepla californica
Caspian tern
Sterna caspia
Cedar waxwing
Bombycilla cedrorum
Common coot
Fulica americana
Common crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common merganser
Mergus merganser
Common snipe
Gallinago gallinago
Common yellow- throat
Geothlypis trichas
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooperii
Dark -eyed junco
Junco hyemalis
Dipper
Cinclus mexicanus
Downy woodpecker
Picoides pubescens
European starling
Sturnus vulgaris
Flycatchers
Muscicapidae spp.
Finches
Fringillidae spp.
Golden- crowned kinglet
Regulus satrapa
Golden- crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
Great horned owl
Bubo virginianus
Green - backed heron
Butorides striatus
Great horned owl
Bubo virginianus
Hooded merganser
Lophodytes cucullatus
Horned grebe
Podiceps auritus •
House finch
Carpodacus mexicanus
House sparrow
Passer domesticus
Hummingbird
Selasphorus spp.
Killdeer
Charadrius vociferus
;,A
■
,.�
Wildlife Species Expected in King County
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
A -i
Appendix A
July 2000
.'1 t'�• !tip 4. tY -'�
+%= >4� ?Jr:.aY .ai2:S:Lviaii�:ldiiGi�L ':}�'-'�`T'. `h'+ "� 1.•ii. , ., rv A 3id�
Fri. 4'"."
Lesser yellowlegs
Tringa flavipes
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Marsh wren
Cistothorus palustris
Merlin
Falco columbarius
Northern flicker
Colaptes cafer
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
Orange-crowned warbler
Vermivora celata
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus
Pied billed grebe
Podilymbus podiceps
Pileated woodpecker
Dryocopus pileatus .
Pine siskin
Carduelis pinus
Purple finch
Carpodacus purpureus
Red-breasted nuthatch
Sitta canadensis
Red-tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
Red-winged blackbird
Agelaius phoenicens
Ring-necked pheasant
Phasianus colchicus
Rock dove
Columba livia
Ruddy duck
Oxyura jamaicensis
Ruffed grouse
Bonasa umbellus
Rufous-sided towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Scaup
Aythya spp.
Sharp-shinned hawk
Accipeter striatus
Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
Song sparrow
Melospiza melodia
Spotted sandpiper
Actitis macularia
Steller's jay
Cyanocitta stelleri
Sora
Porzana carolina
Swainson's thrush
Catharus ustulatus
Tree swallow
Tachycineta bicolor
Varied thrush
Ixoreus naevius
Virginia rail
Rallus limicola
Violet-green swallow
Tachycineta thalassina
Warblers
Dendroica spp.
Western grebe
Aechmophorus occidentalis
White-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Winter wren
Troglodytes troglodytes
Wood duck
Aix sponsa
Woodpeckers
Picinae spp.
MAMMALS
Beaver
Castor canadensis
Big brown bat
Eptesicus fuscus
Black bear
Ursus americanus
Black rat
Rattus rattus
Black-tailed deer
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
Canada elk
Cervus canadensis
Coyote
Canis latrans
Deer mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
Douglas squirrel
Tamiasciurus douglasi
Eastern cottontail
Syluilagus floridanus
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
A-2
Appendix A
July 2000
z
i i-
z
6
O 0
CO W
W I
I_
0
g 5
• =
c'
F-
Z
1— 0
Z I—
LL! u j
M
0
0
tu (L I
0
— 0
. .z
z
cf )
1-
0 I-
Eastern gray squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis
European rabbit
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Fisher
Martes pennanti
House mouse
Mus musculus
Little brown bat
Myotis lucifugus
Long-tailed weasel
Mustela frenata
Marsh shrew
Sorex bendirii
Marten
Martes americana
Mink
Mustela vison
Mountain beaver
Aplodontia rufa rufa
Muskrat
.
Ondatra zibethica
Norway rat
Rattus norvegicus
Opossum
Dedelphis virginiana
Porcupine
Erethizon dorsatum
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Red fox
Vulpes vulpes
River otter
Lutra canadensis
Sasquatch
Bipedus giganticus
Sea otter
Enhydra lutris
Shrew mole
Neurotrichus gibbsii
Short-tailed weasel
Mustela erminea
Striped skunk
Mephitis mephitis
Townsend's vole
Microtus townsedii
Townsend's mole
Scaparus townshendii
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Bull frog
Rana catesbeiana
Common garter snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
Ensatina
Ensatina eschscholtzii
Northern red-legged frog
Rana aurora aurora
Northwestern garter snake
Thamniphis ordinoides
Northwestern salamander
Ambystoma gracile
Pacific chorus frog
Hyla regilla
Rough-skinned newt
Taricha granulosa
Western fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
A-3
Appendix A
July 2000
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
7
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Area
Appendix B
July 2000
BIRDS
Common Name
Scientific Name
American goldfinch
Carduelis tristis
American robin
Turdus migratorius
Barn swallow
Hirundo rustica
Belted kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyon
Black-capped chickadee
Parus atricapilus
Brown-headed cowbird
Molothrus ater
Canada goose
Branta canadensis
Cedar waxwing
Bombycilla cedrorum
Common crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common yellow-throat
Geothlypis trichas
European starling
Sturnus vulgaris
Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
Green-backed heron
Butorides striatus
House finch
Carpodacus mexicanus
House sparrow
Passer domesticus
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Marsh wren
Cistothorus palustris
Northern flicker
Colaptes cafer
Red-winged blackbird
Agelaius phoenicens
Rock dove
Columba livia
Rufous-sided towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
Song sparrow
Melospiza melodia
Tree swallow
Tachycineta bicolor
Violet-green swallow
Tachycineta thalassina
White-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Willow flycatcher
•
Empidonax traillii
-.'• 1 . , .• • ' ' ?••
' MAMMALS
Coyote
Canis latrans
European rabbit
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Long-tailed weasel
Mustela frenata
Muskrat
Ondatra zibethica
Norway rat
Rattus norvegicus
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS . -
Common garter snake
1 Thamnophis sirtalis
7
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Wildlife Species Observed in the Project Area
Appendix B
July 2000
Job No. A00084
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Final Stream Study
Submitted to
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
Submitted by
BERGER //ARAM
E N G I N E E R S I N C.
July 2000
.,_.— �+.......... e.+.... r.-'.. �.. n. o....++ �... .�.m.na.�n.cr.a*+.m:,�+.riu,.mn
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
Tukwila, Washington
FINAL STREAM STUDY
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Submitted to
Submitted by
BERGER /ABAM Engineers Inc. •
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300
Federal Way, Washington 98003 -2600
Job No. A00084
z
z
ILI
6
0 0
W I
Cr) u_
wo
g a
w a
= • w
o
zI-
w in
2 o.
O fn
O F
W w
I
O
O -!
F-
O H
Z
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
FINAL STREAM STUDY
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Methodology 1
3.0 Stream Characteristics 4
3.1 Pools 4
3.2 Riffles 4
3.3 Glides 4
3.4 Low Gradient Glides 5
3.5 Runs 5
4.0 Fish Habitat 5
5.0 Other Stream Habitats 6
6.0 Existing Information 6
6.1 Springbrook Creek 6
6.2 Mill Creek 8
6.3 Riparian Vegetation and Fisheries Habitat 8
6.4 Substrate Composition and Bank Stability 9
6.5 Water Quality 9
6.6 Water Temperature 11
6.7 Turbidity 12
6.8 Obstructions 12
6.9 Fish Utilization 12
6.10 Fisheries Enhancement 13
7.0 Stream Survey 14
7.1 Methods 14
7.2 Findings 14
8.0 Stream Impacts 17
9.0 Regulatory Implications 17
9.1 City of Renton 17
9.2 King County 17
9.3 City of Kent 17
9.4 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 19
10.0 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 19
ii
July 2000
�s.G,W =c1 tat:,s7 *•44 5 'tl=ar`rZ.C,.Yv td'ete:WCid'Cy'jci b4wt�tCd38wi' `xi8udiar+s .(P,?''IN£'rSR A'+X<t.4. -dS! !!! • a .,...:.„. i' _
FINAL STREAM STUDY
SOUTH 180TH STREET GRADE SEPARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
SECTION PAGE
11.0 Limitations 20
12.0 References 20
FIGURES
Figure 1— Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Project Study Area
Figure 3 — Springbrook Creek Watershed Boundary
Figure 4 — King County Soil Survey
Figure 5 — Stream Transect Locations
Figure 6 — Railroad Bridge Extension /Stream Buffer Impacts
TABLES
Table 1 — Adult Salmonids at the Black River P - 1 Pump Station: 1983 - 1990
APPENDIXES
Appendix A— Stream Habitat Types
Appendix B — Data Sheets
Final Wildlife Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
July 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a discussion of the stream habitat assessment performed by BERGER/ABAM
Engineers Inc. (BERGER/ABAM) for Springbrook Creek (WRIA No. 005) and its tributary, Mill
Creek (WRIA No. 0012), within the South 180th Street Grade Separation project study area. The
project is located at the intersection of the northwest corner of Kent, the southwest corner of Renton,
and the eastern boundary of Tukwila, Washington, in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) and Uriion Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks (in Township 23N, Range 4E, north half of
Section 36). A vicinity map is provided as Figure 1. Along South 180th Street, the study area
extends 200 feet north and south of the roadway from 72nd Avenue South on the west side to 80th
Avenue South on the east side. Along the BNSF and UPRR tracks, the study area extends 1,000 feet
north and south of the tracks and within 100 feet of the railroad right -of -way (ROW). A map of the
study area is provided as Figure 2.
The project proponent, City of Tukwila, is proposing a grade separation between South 180th Street
and the BNSF and UPRR tracks for the purposes of improved public safety.
The fish habitat of Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek contributes to the viability of the lower Puget
Sound salmonid fishery. Fish habitat assessments are routinely conducted as part of the impact
analysis associated with land use actions that may adversely affect fisheries resources. These
assessments typically include information about the conditions of the stream channel habitat and
stability, and riparian communities, which is presented in a stream survey report.
The goal of this stream habitat assessment is to examine the structure and quality of the stream
reaches of Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek within the study area, and to determine whether and
how these creeks provide habitat support for salmonids and other aquatic species. Information
presented in this report will contribute to an analysis of the project alternatives and development of
a conceptual mitigation plan.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The cities of Kent and Renton do not have an official stream survey or reporting manual.
Accordingly, BERGER/ABAM conducted the stream survey according to criteria outlined in the
Stream Survey Report Criteria (King County, 1991). Guidelines developed by King County as
outlined in the Stream Survey Report Criteria (King County, 1991) use methods developed by the
U.S. Forest Service Fish Habitat Relationships (FHR) Program presented in Stream Habitat
Classification and Inventory Procedures for Northern California (FHR Methodology) (McCain et al,
1990). These guidelines were used to characterize the stream within the study area.
Information was obtained from a review of existing information, field investigations, and discussions
with fisheries resource professionals and agency staff knowledgeable about the study area.
BERGER/ABAM performed the stream survey of Springbrook and Mill Creeks on July 10 and 16,
1998.
In compliance with King County stream survey methods, fish resources and fish habitat were
identified by assessing the physical characteristics of the stream within the study area, including
• Stream width
• Stream depth
• Stream bank characteristics and vegetation
• Stream bed composition
• Presence of large woody debris (LWD)
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
1
at,"fc's'" ?tJ"3k M 1N!
July 2000
Ii
I
i
4■4
North
Sea-Tac
International
Airport
S 212th
Kent
Project
Area
167
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, 1998
Vicinity Map
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 1
z
< •
_,,l
--I
00
c0
CO W:
W I
LL
u j 0
-75
u_ <
co
c5
u j
Z
0
Z
LLI Lu
V)
0 I—
LL) u j
X 0
—
LL
— 0
• Z
I.
0
u )
F:
Project Area
■l�i� \ \ \ \� wail=
•
Li
r
u
t
Imo
- -•
• _ -
— —:
- •
�._
•
Substii
4111 itiMMINF
Not to Scale
North
Source:
U.S.G.S. Renton, Washington Quadrangle, 1994
Project Study Area
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 2
3.0 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Streams maybe categorized according to certain habitat features common to all salmonid species
that, if found in sufficient quantity, comprise high - quality habitat. These features are generally
classified as pools, riffles, glides, and runs.
3.1 Pools
Pool quality indexing conforms to the criteria developed by the U.S. Forest Service in Methods for
Evaluating Riparian Habitats With Applications to Management ( "Pool Quality Index ") (Platts, et al,
1987). Pool habitat provides resting and feeding habitat for salmonid species. Quality pool areas are
typically areas of slow, nonturbulent water with surface dimensions that are wider than and /or
longer than the average width of the stream within the reach being evaluated. A pool that is 76.2 cm
(2.5 feet) deep or deeper is considered to provide good habitat if it meets the width and length
criteria.
Pool cover is typically made up of substrate material, including rocks and boulders, submerged LWD,
mildly turbulent surfacewater, overhanging streambanks and LWD, and overhanging vegetation
within 1.8 meters (6 feet) or less of the water surface. A pool having greater than 80 percent cover in
conjunction with other criteria is considered to provide good habitat.
No pool habitats were identified within the study area.
3.2 Riffles
Riffles are characterized by faster water with turbulent flow. Quality riffle habitat contains
uncompacted gravels that are loose enough to move under moderate to high force, but are not very
easy to move. Small pockets of slack water form behind large cobbles and boulders within the riffle,
which provide escape, resting, and feeding cover for juvenile salmonids. Riffles also provide
productive habitat for aquatic insects that serve as a food source for salmonids and other aquatic
species found in the stream.
Low gradient riffles are shallow reaches with a gradient of less than 4 percent with swiftly flowing
turbulent flow and some partially exposed cobble- dominated substrate. High gradient riffles are
steep reaches with a gradient of greater than 4 percent of moderately deep, swift, and very turbulent
flows over a boulder- dominated substrate. A cascade is the steepest riffle habitat, consisting of
alternating small waterfalls and shallow pools over a substrate of bedrock and boulders.
One reach of riffle habitat was observed within the study area and classified as low gradient riffle
habitat.
3.3 Glides
Glides are characterized by moderately shallow water (10 to 30 cm deep) with an even flow lacking
pronounced turbulence. Although they are most frequently located at the transition between a pool
and the head of a riffle, glides are occasionally found in long, low gradient stream reaches with stable
banks and no major flow obstructions. The typical substrate is gravel and cobbles.
No glides were observed within the study area.
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
4
July 2000
3.4 Low Gradient Glides
The category of "low gradient glide" is not defined by the FHR Methodology. This classification was
created by Harza Northwest, Inc. in the report Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the
Springbrook, Mill and Garrison Creek Watershed for the City of Kent (Harza Northwest, 1995) to
categorize a habitat type common in the Springbrook Creek watershed.
The majority of the stream habitat within the study area consists of low gradient glide habitat with
no major flow obstructions.
3.5 Runs
Runs are swiftly flowing reaches with little surface agitation and no major flow obstructions. Runs
often appear as flooded riffles. Typical substrates are gravel, cobble, and boulders.
No run habitat was identified within the study area.
4.0 FISH HABITAT
The procedures outlined in the FHR Methodology (as modified by King County Surface Water
Management) use a system of naming 22 habitat types derived from work on stream channel
morphology, pool -riffle and step -pool formation, and fish habitat utilization in western Washington
and Oregon. Riffles are differentiated on the basis of water surface gradient. Pools are
differentiated at two levels: (1) the position of the pool in the stream channel (secondary channel,
backwater, lateral or main channel); and (2) the cause of the scour (obstruction, blockage,
constriction, or merging flows). Run habitat types have low gradients and are differentiated on the
basis of depth and velocity. These main channel features, along with others formed by smaller scale
local effects, such as logjams and slides, can be recognized as distinct channel units or habitat types.
The 22 habitat types are listed in Appendix A.
Generally, a given stream will not contain all 22 habitat types. Instead, the mix will be dominated
by a few habitat types that reflect the overall channel gradient, flow regime, cross - sectional profile,
and substrate particle size of the stream. A stream that has habitat composition ranging from 40
percent pool /60 percent riffle to 60 percent pool/40 percent riffle is considered to provide quality
salmonid habitat, if the following factors are also present.
■ The pool and riffle areas meet the criteria for quality habitat.
• The streamside vegetation is indigenous, vigorous, functional, and has LWD recruitment
potential.
• There is an appropriate amount of LWD present in the channel and floodplain.
• The floodplain areas and /or side channels provide good quality refuge and over - wintering
habitat.
■ The habitat units are relatively stable and do not change drastically in response to ordinary
high -water events.
• The adjacent land uses do not present a high risk of causing the quality of the habitat to change
significantly over time.
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
5
July 2000
5.0 OTHER STREAM HABITATS
Other stream habitats that can provide information on the degree to which a stream provides quality
habitat for salmonids and resident fish species include the following.
• Riparian plant communities
• Presence and amount of LWD adjacent land uses
• Areas of existing and potential erosion hazard
• Overflow and side channel habitat
• Floodplain characteristics
• Edgewater areas
• Cascades
• Bedrock chutes
• Large in- channel boulders that provide resting areas for fish
6.0 EXISTING INFORMATION
6.1 Springbrook Creek
Springbrook Creek drains a watershed subbasin defined by the City of Kent as the "Springbrook,
Mill and Garrison Creek Watershed" (SMG Watershed) (Harza Northwest, 1995). The SMG
Watershed covers about 15,763 acres (24 square miles) and can be delineated into two distinct
topographical areas: the valley floor and the foothill zone. The valley floor, located in the western
portion of the watershed, is relatively flat and of alluvial origin and covers about 5,928 acres. The
foothill zone, found in the eastern portion of the watershed, consists of rolling and bench slopes and
comprises about 7,554 acres. Elevation in the watershed ranges between 10 and 525 feet above sea
level. Slope in the watershed ranges from 0 to 70 percent. The steepest slopes are in upper Mill
Creek, upstream of the Earthworks Park Detention Pond (EWP) in Kent. Nearly 50 miles of total
channel exists within the entire watershed.
Springbrook Creek is formed by four east valley tributaries, including the mainstem, a tributary
originating from Springbrook Springs; Mill Creek; and Garrison Creek. These tributaries flow
westerly and northwesterly through Kent and Renton, picking up additional tributary flow from the
eastern portion of Renton. From its headwaters located in the eastern portion of Kent, Springbrook
Creek flows north for approximately 10 miles along the east valley hillside before entering the Black
River channel, a tributary to the Green River (Williams, et al, 1975). The watershed boundary is
depicted in Figure 3.
The Black River Pumping Station (BRPS) was constructed at the mouth of the Black River channel
by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1971 and 1972 to prevent waters from the Duwamish River
from backing up into the old Black River channel and Springbrook Creek (Jones & Stokes, 1991).
The Black River today is a small remnant of the former Black River that drained Lake Washington
before construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, which lowered Lake Washington and
diverted flows from the Black River (R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., 1997). The BRPS is located in
Renton approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the confluence of the Black and Green Rivers, and is
currently operated and maintained by the King County Surface Water Management Division. An
earthen, culverted, outfall structure is located approximately 500 feet downstream of the BAPS site.
The purpose of the dam was to prevent the flows of the Green River from backing up into the Black
River /Springbrook Creek floodplain at high stage (Harza Northwest, 1995).
Before the valley was developed, Springbrook Creek regularly overflowed its channel and
floodwaters would spread out in the low gradient valley (Shapiro & Associates, Inc., 1997). In 1984,
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
6 July 2000
Springbrook Creek was channelized to contain increased peak flows from local drainages north of
Interstate 405 (I -405) and the Southcenter area. The channel is approximately 8.5 miles long and is
called the P -1 (primary) Channel, as well as Springbrook Creek because it follows the former creek
channel.
In- stream dredging is currently limited to protect fish habitat in those portions of the SMG
Watershed under King County jurisdiction. Dredging does occur in certain circumstances to control
invasive vegetation, such as reed canarygrass and blackberry, and to remove stream substrate for
flood protection. Dredging is only allowed during the summer when no anadromous fish are
migrating (Harza Northwest, 1995). The City of Renton, with assistance from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the SCS), completed P -1 Channel improvements between
Grady Way and Southwest 16th Street in 1995. Improvements included a parallel channel along this
reach that passes through the previously constructed I -405 box culvert (R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc.,
1997).
Stream discharges within the study area at the time of low -flow surveys measured 1.49 cubic
feet /second (cfs) in Springbrook Creek downstream of the confluence with Mill Creek (Harza
Northwest, 1995).
6.2 Mill Creek
Mill Creek is a tributary to Springbrook Creek and drains a watershed located east of the Green
River and west of the UPRR, in the western portion of Kent, Washington. The creek flows northerly
through Kent, picking up additional tributary flow just south of River Mile 1 and just north of River
Mile 2. Mill Creek enters the study area from the south between the BNSF and the UPRR just north
(downstream) of River Mile 4 of Springbrook Creek. From the study area boundary, the stream flows
approximately 990 feet to its confluence with Springbrook Creek.
In a stream inventory in September 1993, Harza Northwest reported that dredging had occurred in
Mill Creek between the UPRR right -of -way and South 196th Street as part of the cleanup of the
Western Processing Superfund site. The dredging created vertical cutbanks, denuded streambank
vegetation, and appeared to increase in- stream sedimentation. In 1993, dredging also took place in
Mill Creek along Kennebeck Street from Smith Street to James Street adjacent to the Western
Processing Superfund site. In the latter case, dredging was done to remove potentially toxic
substances from the stream bottom (Harza Northwest, 1995).
Stream discharges within the study area at the time of low -flow surveys measured 1.42 cfs in Mill
Creek, upstream of the confluence with Springbrook Creek (Harza Northwest, 1995).
6.3 Riparian Vegetation and Fisheries Habitat
The City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory of Wetlands and Streams (Jones & Stokes, 1991)
indicates that bank vegetation cover for Springbrook Creek within the project area consisted of
shrubs and grasses and that this section of the creek is characterized by poor water quality and
provides limited habitat for salmonids.
A fisheries report was completed by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (WDI) in June 1998 for the portion of
Springbrook Creek from South 180th Street north to Oakesdale Avenue SW. The report describes
the riparian community along this section of the creek as dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea) and willow (Salix spp.) with a few black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) in the area
near South 180th Street (WDI, 1998). The report characterized the fisheries habitat as generally
poor for salmonids and would be used "primarily as a migration channel for up- migrating adults and
down - migrating juveniles. Some rearing may occur in the early spring when water temperatures are
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
8
July 2000
suitable, but the fish do not appear to stay in the system for any extended period of time." (WDI,
1998)
Near the Mill Creek confluence, ribbonleaf pondweed (Potamogeton epihydrous), a plant that prefers
very slow- moving water, was identified within Springbrook Creek (Harza Northwest, 1995).
6.4 Substrate Composition and Bank Stability
The geology of the SMG Watershed is dominated by the underlying Vashon till deposit, which was
laid down during the Fraser glaciation in the Pleistocene. The Vashon till consists of very dense,
consolidated till that ranges in thickness from 6 to 100 feet. As the Vashon glacier receded, large
quantities of meltwater were discharged leaving gravelly and sandy terraces in the uplands of the
Springbrook Creek Watershed. Alluvium accumulated in the valleys in post - glacial times (Harza
Northwest, 1995).
The soils in the valley floor are predominantly silt loams with some silty clay loams, fine sandy
loams, peat, and fill. This fill material, used to prepare sites for construction, ranges from about 3 to
13 feet in thickness, and varies from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. Most of the
indigenous soils in the valley floor are poorly drained (Harza Northwest, 1995).
The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Soil Survey) describes the soil within the
Springbrook Creek riparian corridor as Puyallup fine sandy loam (Figure 4). The Puyallup series
consists of well- drained soils that formed in alluvium with a typical profile as very dark grayish
brown and dark grayish brown fine sandy loam from the surface to a depth of 34 inches.
Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff potential is slow, erosion and slippage hazard is slight, and
flooding potential is slight to severe. Rooting depth extends to 60 inches and beyond and available
water - holding capacity is moderately high (Snyder, et al, 1973).
The Soil Survey describes the soil within the Mill Creek riparian corridor as Woodinville silt loam
(Figure 4). The Woodinville series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium on stream
bottoms with a typical profile as a gray silt loam with layers of peaty muck extending from the
surface to a depth of 38 inches. Permeability is moderately slow, runoff potential is slow, erosion
hazard is slight, and flooding potential is severe unless flood protection is provided. Rooting depth
extends to 60 inches and beyond, but in undrained areas, rooting depth is restricted. Available
water - holding capacity is high and there is a seasonally high water table at or near the surface
(Snyder, et al, 1973).
The fisheries report completed by WDI (WDI, 1998) described the channel bottom immediately north
of South 180th Street within the study area as dominated by sand and fine gravel with only limited
larger geologic material. No LWD of significance and little recruitable material was reported in this
reach of the riparian corridor.
Major rainfall events currently result in rapid runoff, increased surface erosion, and degraded water
quality. These rapid runoff events, or "freshets," result in increased creek velocities that downcut
and can destabilize streambanks, denude riparian vegetation, and degrade water quality. In 1993,
severe downcutting was observed in Mill Creek, and low to moderate downcutting was observed in
Springbrook Creek (Harza Northwest, 1995).
6.5 Water Quality
Degraded water quality in the lower reaches of Springbrook and Mill Creeks may limit salmonid use
of the creek under certain conditions. Nonpoint source pollution occurs throughout the watershed.
The Western Processing site on Mill Creek upstream of the study area near South 196th Street in
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
9
July 2000
G ^�`t" .. "'.r�4- °.• t14�J' �3R Y3?l.e,:ait*1 , 1 , 7 01p;Y.4tx'OO,04
Project Area
Py
Ng
LEGEND
WO — Woodinville Silt Loam
Pu — Puget Silty Clay Loam
Ng — Newberg Silt Loam
Not to Scale
41•111•11.• MUM.
Source:
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1973
Py — Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam
Ur — Urban Land
k, • '
..1
ya.n. Arne
King County Soil Survey
South 180th Street Grade Separation
#1
thlti* •:*
te
fr
North
Kent may be considered a potential nonpoint source of pollution. The site has been designated as an
EPA Superfund site and will be cleaned up over several years. Recent data have documented high
levels of zinc and cadmium contamination in sediments in Mill Creek (R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc.,
1997).
The Springbrook Creek channel provides limited juvenile rearing habitat due to poor water quality
(e.g., elevated summer water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels) (Jones & Stokes, 1991).
During the summer of 1994, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream monitoring gauge was installed
on Mill Creek about 600 feet upstream of the Springbrook Creek confluence, between the train
trestles. The gauge records water temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
water elevations every 15 minutes. Available records covering the period between September 16 and
December 22, 1994 were compared with the requirements of adult salmon that were actively
migrating during this time period (Harza Northwest, 1995). Harza Northwest reported standards
were exceeded for turbidity, as well as acute and chronic toxicity criteria for lead and chromium.
Low levels of phthalate esters and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were also found. Of the
standards that have been exceeded in Springbrook Creek, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
and fecal coliform bacteria consistently do not meet DOE water quality standards or guidelines (R.W.
Beck & Associates, Inc., 1997). Fish mortality may occur from chronic exposure to concentrations of
other metals that exist at levels lower than the acute levels because of synergistic affects experienced
by fish when exposed to high levels of more that one metal or other water quality problems. These
factors, especially when the synergistic affects are considered, likely cause changes in fish
distribution within the watershed, poor growth and survival, and direct mortality to salmonid
populations (Harza Northwest, 1995).
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has established numerical standards for
specific water quality parameters in part to protect fish and wildlife resources. Springbrook and Mill
Creeks are designated as Class A (excellent water quality) in conformance to present and potential
water uses and in consideration of the natural water quality potential and limitations in these
systems. In compliance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, DOE has listed Springbrook
Creek as not meeting state surfacewater quality standards for fecal coliform, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, cadmium, copper, mercury, and zinc. Sampling along Springbrook Creek channel suggests
that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) concentrations exceed soil cleanup levels, thus requiring
treatment (i.e., on -site bioremediation) or restricting disposal of these sediments, if dredged, to an
approved landfill (R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., 1997).
Low dissolved oxygen is known to directly affect the growth and survival of fish. Dissolved oxygen
levels above 10 mg/1 are optimum for salmon and trout. Dissolved oxygen levels below 8 mg/1 can
cause stress in salmon and trout, and levels below 4 mg/1 can be lethal. Swimming ability of juvenile
coho salmon can drop in unsaturated water. Dissolved oxygen sample sites in Mill Creek have often
been less than optimum, whereas levels below the lethal limit for salmonids have been documented
in the lower gradient reaches of Springbrook and Mill Creeks (Harza Northwest, 1995). Some of the
low dissolved oxygen levels may be due to influx of low - oxygen groundwater, lack of gradient, low
flow velocities, lack of in- stream structures (i.e., woody debris), and lack of riparian vegetation cover
(R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., 1997).
6.6 Water Temperature
Water temperature is often a limiting factor in aquatic ecosystems and is directly related to the
health and distribution of aquatic organisms at all life stages. Optimal temperatures for salmonids
generally range from about 7 to 19 degrees C and lethal temperatures are generally in the range of
24 to 25 degrees C, depending on the species. Reported water temperatures were generally warmer
in downstream reaches of Springbrook and Mill Creeks. Water temperatures in excess of 18 degrees
C (the Class A standard) have been documented in Springbrook and Mill Creeks, although
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
SI .SATt r kauts:r . nyua
11
July 2000
• 9R4 •.W�>'4 +?rF: ?.= W�'!�n�;r!..nL, ,^K'...y {t(w r
occurrences of these temperatures were reported as infrequent. Out of approximately 8,750
temperature readings taken at 15 minute intervals at the Mill Creek USGS gauge within the study
area between September 16 and December 22, 1994, 174 (2 percent) exceeded State water quality
criteria. None of these exceedances occurred later than early October. Water temperatures outside
the optimal range but below the lethal limit would tend to decrease salmonid viability, especially if
these conditions persist (Harza Northwest, 1995).
6.7 Turbidity
Behavioral changes have been observed in coho salmon, rainbow trout, and other fish as a result of
increased turbidity. Turbidity may increase energy expenditures in capturing prey and affect the
production of aquatic ecosystems by smothering fish eggs, destroying benthic organisms, and limiting
primary productivity. Turbidity standards for Class A streams have been exceeded in lower
Springbrook Creek (Harza Northwest, 1995).
6.8 Obstructions
Anadromous fish are only able to access the lower 5.4 miles of Springbrook Creek due to a 30 -foot
culvert oriented with a 100 percent slope located immediately downstream of Talbot Road in the
upper reaches of Springbrook Creek. This culvert poses a complete barrier to fish migration (Harza
Northwest, 1995). Adult salmon have been reported ascending the fish ladder at the BRPS and
entering the P -1 Channel, which suggests that spawning occurs farther upstream in the creek and its
tributaries (Jones & Stokes, 1991).
6.9 Fish Utilization
Springbrook Creek is identified by the Priority Habitats and Species map (WDFW, 1998) as
providing important fish habitat for anadromous fish runs. The Catalog of Washington Streams and
Salmon Utilization identifies Springbrook Creek as habitat for coho salmon (Williams, et al, 1975).
Prior to channelization, Springbrook Creek supported runs of coho salmon (Oncorhyhnchus nerka)
and other anadromous species, such as steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout
( Oncorhynchus clarkii), and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). A downstream and upstream
salmonid fish passage facility was incorporated into the pump station facility at the mouth of the
Black River channel. A denil fish ladder was installed in the pump station to allow upstream
passage of adult salmonids. According to the Washington State Department of Fisheries, however,
the operation of the pumping plant precluded the upstream migration of cutthroat and steelhead
trout. This could also indicate that upstream passage of juvenile coho salmon during the winter may
also be restricted. The airlift pump station that passes downstream migrant salmonids typically
operates from April 1 to mid -June (Jones & Stokes, 1991).
Currently, accessible fish spawning areas exist in the upper tributaries of Springbrook and Mill
Creeks. Sediment buildup in the lower reaches of these systems along the valley floor, combined
with poor water quality, eliminates these lower reaches (including the study area) for anadromous
fish spawning, however, lower Springbrook Creek (including the study area) serves as an essential
link between the Green River and headwater spawning grounds (R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., 1997).
During the low -flow period of 1993, Harza Northwest captured fish at sample sites in the SMG
Watershed. The three - spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) was the most abundant fish
observed in the low- gradient valley floor portion of the watershed. One pumpkinseed sunfish was
caught within the study area in Springbrook Creek downstream from the confluence with Mill Creek.
Fish species diversity was greatest in transition reaches between the low- gradient valley floor and
the high - gradient foothills area. These transition reaches are upstream of the study area. In
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
12
July 2000
general, coho salmon sampled from other low gradient glides were significantly smaller than coho
from other habitat types. When present in glide or riffle habitats, these fish were generally found
near structural cover or velocity breaks (Harza Northwest, 1995). Juvenile coho salmon have been
observed in a pool in the North Fork of Mill Creek, indicating that anadromous fish use extends up to
104th Avenue Southeast and possibly further (Harza Northwest, 1995).
One June 2, 1998, WDI completed an electroshock fisheries survey from a 300 -foot reach of
Springbrook Creek approximately 100 feet upstream of the entrance to the culverts under Oakesdale
Avenue Southwest. Electroshocking was also completed in a 400 -foot section immediately north of
the study area within the Oakesdale Business Park property (between RM 1 and RM 2). The survey
was conducted to remove the fish from these areas in support of an Ecology cleanup order. WDI
measured the two salmonids captured. In the Oakesdale Business Park reach, WDI captured a
280 -mm cutthroat trout. In the Oakesdale Avenue Southwest reach, WDI captured a 110 -mm coho
salmon. In addition to the two salmon, WDI captured approximately 50 three - spined stickleback.
These fish are generally more tolerant of thermal and chemical pollution than the salmonid species.
6.10 Fisheries Enhancement
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) stocked coho salmon fry in Mill
Creek as early as 1976. Between 1981 and 1992, an average of 96,000 coho fingerlings was released
into Mill Creek annually. In 1992, after fish production potential in Mill Creek was analyzed, the
WDFW decided to limit the number of fish stocked in Mill Creek to 50,000 annually. The fish were
placed in various locations along Mill Creek in Kent (Harza Northwest, 1995).
Since 1995, coho have been stocked in Springbrook Creek (R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., 1997). As
part of an ongoing fisheries enhancement project on Springbrook Creek, 10,044 coho fingerlings were
planted into the stream in 1997 (Schneider, personal communication, 1998).
As of 1990, adult progeny from coho fingerling releases returned to Springbrook Creek to spawn. A
fish counter at the pump station indicated that 47 to 166 adult coho ascended the fish ladder each
year between 1983 and 1990 (Table 1).
Table 1. Adult Salmonids at the Black River P -1 Pump Station: 1983 - 1990
Year Quantity
1983 —1984 155
1984 — 1985 119
1985 —1986 47
1986 —1987 83
1987 —1988 166
1988 —1989 95
1989 —1990 77
- .. Source: Jones & Stokes, 1991
Harza Northwest completed a study of the water quality impacts on the fish resources of the
Springbrook Creek watershed in 1995, which listed recommendations for preservation and
restoration of these resources. Some of the major findings include the following.
• Water samples taken during the 1994 upstream migration fish run indicated that dissolved
oxygen levels at low flows were often below the lethal limit to fish. Dissolved oxygen levels were
marginally acceptable for adult salmon during the period of upstream passage and would seem to
be one of the most likely reasons for inhibiting fish from reaching spawning areas.
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
13
July 2000
>r' ;44,,)Y iA4:4, ,:4„„'
• Water temperatures at low flows were higher than optimal conditions.
• Levels of metals were high and in some instances may be acutely toxic to fish.
■ Macroinvertebrate densities were low throughout the watershed and types of macroinvertebrates
found in the low gradient habitats indicated poor water quality. The streambed movement also
limited the abundance, type, and diversity of macroinvertebrates, as the low diversity and lack of
long -lived macroinvertebrates seemed to suggest.
z
_~
w
• Streams in the watershed had very little in- stream structure (i.e., woody debris) or pool habitat. _1 0
co
LLJ
■ Based on capture of fry -sized coho in the system before the WDFW stocked Mill Creek in 1994
indicated some natural reproduction, but the number of spawning fish was very low.
Riparian habitat was also poor in many reaches.
CO W
w
General recommendations that pertain to the study area include the following. g • 5
�<
• Stabilize stream channels and create in- stream or side channel pool habitat. co a
= w
• Minimize dredging in the low gradient portion of the watershed to decrease turbidity. z
t 0
■ Improve water quality for the entire watershed with emphasis on dissolved oxygen, temperature, w
high turbidity, and heavy metal concentration. Q
0
O 59-
O H
ww
• O
.. z
Because the local jurisdictions within the study area have no official stream survey or reporting 0 u)
manual, guidelines developed by King County for a Level 1 Basic Stream Survey (King County, P
1991) were utilized for the Springbrook Creek/Mill Creek stream survey. Data corresponding to each O
stream reach are provided in Appendix B. Invertebrates were not sampled and fish shocking was not
applied as part of this study, because they are usually sampled as part of a more complex, Level 2
stream survey.
7.0 STREAM SURVEY
7.1 Methods
A total of seven transects spanning the width of the stream were established at 300 -foot intervals
within the stream (Figure 5). Approximately 450 feet of Springbrook Creek was evaluated south of
180th Street and approximately 830 feet of Mill Creek from its confluence with Springbrook Creek to
200 feet south of the BNSF bridge. A 100 -foot Teflon measuring tape was used to estimate the
"reach point" along the transect where specific habitat features were located in the stream channel.
Transects describing Reaches SB1 and SB2 represent Springbrook Creek. Reaches MC1A, MC2A,
MC3A, MC1, and MC2 represent Mill Creek (Figure 5). Stream transect locations were identified
with sequentially numbered orange flagging on both sides of the stream. Riparian vegetation,
riparian structures, unique features (natural and man - made), and other notable features were also
recorded. Data is presented in Appendix B.
7.2 Findings
The habitat type within the reaches of Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek within the study area is
predominantly low gradient glide habitat. A small reach (approximately 100 feet) of riffle habitat is
located beneath the BNSF bridge spanning Mill Creek. The stream reaches within the study area
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
14
July 2000
•
•■-•
•
r,
I
„ir •
• ••1I
Culvert-
k•
•
1 . ' !
,-.
- t SB1
.... ,
-1
/ Project Limits
- , •
.,1 - t .1:- , ., .. .! •
---, 0
- ci 1 . .a......• L. ..u....:........
( ' . . . • '
. , , 6,
‘z
-.4 , it , . cc . . .
.1 c , •cc cc ,,,, -, ..,, ., c il. I ..1
-.i 03 cc u - . • ,..,-. ,„,..„.
,.,
.0
SB2-4=3
,...
I .22 . . .. • o ce . . A....i. 1
11 = . 0 --'-. s r " - ,-.
-,i ;•',.'•.f lA : . ‘` s•
• , 6- - ....t . -- 1,.. . . -
i41;•?..` . - ,,,",-)%•..,., :
,ill .•,.. A
-1 • '.. 1 mi •• um m 1.1 i " •• m dl r. ;L•4:' .V;
••--I ';`.:(=•'•';' -
• . MC3A ' - - . ; l''
I.
,. 1 ... - : .1,
. ,
■ ,Railroad -' 'A- '1' - -
) !Trestle .,,, a •, - ,
- , f Bridge - ./ - -;.,, ot
-• ift •
1
MC2
LEGEND
= Transect
• ••• • ' .• , 14/ ....
111
I 1 . 4 '
1 •• • • ' • f ... ' '', e
1
, IF! , ,: : 1:7i 4 ' ...''''': • - ;;!:f, ;;'''!: /•'• ' ,.-r,.. .
1.,'':• ,/ ' '.
.
•',: ..A.:. i ,,, , i ."
‘'e ' ',. ' .
4■:!. 4 • r••
. ..11) •• • -
• •7':i: ?!.::. ' r' ..*. • , s'! .;• . i •,--. .• ' .. •. 7 ,;•• :..../' •.' . , ..,
•,"•,, •'' . I . ' .. ---... / • ''''
,e1 I s zi • .. . .
•. , / ,7 .0. .,.
.i '. -.' ..;';''','•"';•' *- 0.0 '. 7 • • •• -7 . f• : • -•
. ,,,. • T '
:, . .... ' .
• t
' .1 .. ‘,.
' Ill f- , •Z . i 1..' .
i s ' • :•'; rg ''' 4„ Project Limits •.
,- .. „ ====== .. ,.. NE. =I ir. Es .= =I; ===== ..= ====
So. 180th St.
S.
k
`•:/r. • -
•'•••"^
MC1 ,, L k' 1. •
I • :
' I •
'1
•
.'* •
• •
-,•
11
.•• • .13••••• ' • : ••• •
17 ?7gbrpok ••. . •
" - • • •
17 7. - r* == == •• :
• .
z
•
•
••••-•`• " r
fr
North
Source:
BERGER/ABAM Engineers, Inc. 1998
Stream Transect Locations
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 5
•r-;• • '• • '
•trNM..!0•;.TM•IMMnr/Mr;-N
i
lack meanders, significant in- stream woody debris, and significant woody riparian vegetation. The
creek channels essentially resemble drainage ditches. Springbrook Creek mean channel depths
within the study area range from 1.61 to 1.88 feet with maximum depths ranging from 2.2 to 3.7 feet.
These depths are subject to continual change due to the storm events and seasonal high water
moving the unconsolidated silt substrates in addition to importation of silts from upstream erosion
within the watershed and subbasin.
Stream banks within the study area appeared stable during the field investigation and well anchored
with upland grasses dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor),
along with occasional small stands of forested and scrub -shrub vegetation dominated by red alder
(Alnus rubra) cottonwood and Pacific and Sitka willow. No evidence of recent failures or slides was
observed. With the exception of a few points along the stream reaches, there was a lack of an
overhead canopy and subsequent creek shading throughout the study area. LWD and boulders were
absent from the stream channels and the culvert beneath South 180th Street was free of debris at
the time of the field investigation.
Flow velocities were measured at each transect. A 6- inch -wide piece of floating debris traveled at a
rate of 0.5 foot per second in Springbrook Creek. Flow velocities in Mill Creek ranged from 0.15 foot
per second upstream from the confluence of Springbrook Creek to 2.4 feet per second in the riffle
area underneath the BNSF railroad trestle. There was no evidence of algal mats or blooms within
either stream channel.
The in- stream habitat within the study area is primarily composed of low velocity glides. High
quality pools, which are important for over - wintering habitats that provide refuge for fish during
high -flow events, were not present within the reaches evaluated. Substrate is dominated by fine
organic silts within the glide habitat, with gravel and cobble substrate within the riffle habitat reach.
This type of sediment provides no in- stream cover for juvenile or adult fishes. Gravels that maybe
suitable for spawning were only observed in a small reach beneath the BNSF bridge spanning Mill
Creek.
LWD is an important structural element in Pacific Northwest streams, particularly smaller streams
like Springbrook and Mill Creeks. Logs form deep scour pools, capture organic matter that is a
fundamental energy source for aquatic organisms (including fish), sort substrate, and dissipate
energy. Pools formed by large organic debris jams can be stable structural components of stream
systems and are often important refuges for fish during high flow events. No LWD jams and little
woody debris were observed within the study area. Large native, streamside vegetation has been
mostly removed, which has reduced LWD recruitment and formation of debris jams.
The corrugated metal arch culvert under South 180th Street and the BNSF bridge do not appear to
be potential barriers to upstream passage of anadromous and resident salmonids. The culvert could
present a potential velocity barrier during high -flow conditions. There were no prominent
morphological features, such as eroding banks, landslides, slumps, or debris jams, observed within
the study area. No other obstructions were observed within the study area that would prevent
juveniles and adults from migrating both upstream and downstream.
The lack of habitat diversity, riparian vegetation structure and diversity, shading, and overall water
turbidity do not provide generally suitable habitat for anadromous fish populations in the reaches of
Springbrook and Mill Creeks within the study area.
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
,..: ;� `:,. t +z ic:: zaS' z !��rv:`?�` ,�.'°.;n'�;1:' S i,ii? s,r4:i;4zc: leativ..0.' ,
16
July 2000
8.0 STREAM IMPACTS
A temporary railroad bridge extension over Mill Creek will be constructed to provide stream crossing
for four "shooflies," or detours for the BNSF and UPRR tracks. The temporary bridge area of
disturbance will be approximately 90 feet long by 30 feet wide. No in- stream work below the
ordinary high water mark is proposed. Small pilings will be driven into the streambank within the
50 -foot stream buffer (Figure 6) to support the bridge deck. ?
rt w
The existing 50 -foot upland buffer for Mill Creek immediately adjacent to the proposed temporary 6
bridge expansion zone have buffer functions and values that are rated as follows. v U O
v7
• LOW in maintaining water quality, including pollution assimilation, sediment entrapment, and
W
temperature moderation F
w o
• LOW in reducing hydrological fluctuation, including surface runoff absorption
• MODERATE stabilization of stream banks
CO
• LOW protection of uplands from flooding H w
z �
• LOW in providing streams with nutrients and woody debris Z O
wW
• LOW in providing recreational opportunities U 0 c o
• LOW in providing fish and wildlife habitat p F ..
Ww
• LOW in providing human impact deterrence, including noise and visual screening H
o
u'O
W
z
U=
O~
9.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
9.1 City of Renton
The length of the creek within Renton from its mouth to South 180th is designated a Shoreline of
Statewide Significance by the City of Renton, and is under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971. In compliance with the Shoreline Management Act, the City of Renton has
adopted a Shoreline Master Program (SMP; Chapter. 19 of the Renton City Code) for regulating
activities within shoreline areas. Springbrook Creek is designated as an Urban shoreline within the
study area. Impacts to the creek would require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from
the City of Renton and would be subject to a 25 -foot buffer.
9.2 King County
King County has classified Springbrook Creek as a Class 2 stream with salmonids (King County,
1990). Streams are defined by the County as "those areas of King County where surfacewaters
produce a defined channel or bed." (King County, 1990). A Class 2 stream with salmonids is defined
as a stream that is smaller than a Class 1 stream that flows year -round during years of normal
rainfall, or a stream used by salmonids.
9.3 City of Kent
The City of Kent regulates development activities adjacent to streams through the Kent City Code
(Section 15). Springbrook and Mill Creeks are classified as major creeks by the City of Kent. The
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
17
July 2000
z
Not to Scale
Stream Buffer.-
Impact Area
Bridge T;
Extension
;t.
— Existing Railroad
Trestle Bridge
�r
North
Source:
BERGER /ABAM Engineers 1999
Railroad Bridge Extension /Stream Buffer Impacts
South 180th Street Grade Separation
Figure 6
y ^`C'lCi. /a:
Code requires that all major and minor creeks in the city, where they flow on or across undeveloped
land, shall be retained in their natural state and location. Setbacks from major creeks are 50 feet.
9.4 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDFW protects fisheries in Washington streams through the Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100 and
75.20.103; 220 -110 WAC). A Hydraulic Project Approval is required for projects that may result in
impacts on streams or riparian habitat.
10.0 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
For this project, the project design team considered all practical efforts to avoid and minimize
potential impacts that could occur to wetlands and streams. Impacts to the Springbrook Creek
buffer include land clearing for placement of an outfall structure.
The goals of a stream mitigation plan include
• Achieve no net on -site loss of stream buffer functions and values within the Springbrook Creek
drainage basin.
• Enhance the disturbed portion of the Mill Creek stream buffer in the vicinity of the temporary
shoofly bridge.
To reach this goal, the impacted portion of the Mill Creek buffer will be restored and enhanced. The
enhanced stream buffer will be consistent with mitigation requirements as stated in the Kent City
Code. Based upon the existing functions of the stream buffer to be disturbed, the enhanced
mitigation stream buffer area will provide at a minimum a net gain in the following functional buffer
ratings to the following levels.
■ MODERATE in maintaining water quality, including pollution assimilation, sediment
entrapment, and temperature moderation
• MODERATE in reducing hydrological fluctuation, including surface runoff absorption
■ HIGH stabilization of stream banks
• MODERATE protection of uplands from flooding
• MODERATE in providing streams with nutrients and woody debris
• MODERATE in providing recreational opportunities
• MODERATE in providing fish and wildlife habitat
• MODERATE in providing human impact deterrence, including noise and visual screening
Steep slope erosion protection is needed within the Mill Creek buffer immediately adjacent to the
proposed temporary bridge expansion area for risk hazard reduction and to minimize adverse
impacts on the project area and downstream riparian habitat. Study area steep slopes are made up
of mostly sands, silts, and other noncohesive materials that can be sources of fine sediment and
debris that may adversely affect study area and downstream fisheries habitat. When this fine
material is mobilized, eroded, and deposited into the riparian zone, it fills voids between larger
gravels in downstream streambeds.
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
19
July 2000
As compensation for stream buffer impacted by the temporary bridge expansion, the disturbed
streambank and buffer would be restored and enhanced upstream above the ordinary high water
mark. Buffer plantings would consist of native tree, shrub, and emergent plant species that are
known to provide high wildlife habitat value in addition to extensive branching fibrous root systems
that provide high utility for steep slope stabilization. Riparian associated stream bank plantings
would provide stream bank stabilization, stream shading, and wildlife habitat and cover, resulting in
a significant improvement in site - specific vegetation community structure. If feasible, following
discussions with the City of Kent and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), large woody debris shall be placed within the stream channel adjacent to the impact area.
A detailed planting plan will be developed following consultation with WDFW for the Hydraulic
Project Approval.
11.0 LIMITATIONS
Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope of work, BERGER/ABAM warrants 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, as
outlined in the Methodology section. Habitat classification is a somewhat subjective and occasionally
imprecise practice. Classification can vary depending on flow conditions at the time of an inventory
and experience of inventory personnel. The results and conclusions of this report represent the
authors' best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the cities of Renton and
Kent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
12.0 REFERENCES
R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc. 1997. City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. Final. In association with Jones & Stokes, Inc.,
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, and Herrera Environmental Consultants. Seattle,
Washington.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, No. 53033C0976F,
53033C0977F, 53033C0978F, and 53033C0979F. King County, Washington, and
Incorporated Areas. May 16, 1995.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press, Seattle, Washington.
Harza Northwest, Inc. 1995. Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Springbrook, Mill and
Garrison Creek Watershed for the City of Kent. Prepared for the City of Kent, Environmental
Engineering. June 1995. Bellevue, Washington.
Jones & Stokes. 1991. City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory of Wetlands and Streams. Bellevue,
Washington. In association with R.W. Beck & Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington.
King County. 1991. Stream Survey Report Criteria. King County, Building & Land Development
Division, Parks, Planning and Resources Department, Bellevue, Washington.
King County. 1990. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. Division of Planning and Community Development.
Bellevue, Washington.
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
20
July 2000
Knutson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority
Habitats: Riparian. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,
Washington.
McCain, M., D. Fuller, L. Decker and K. Overton. 1990. Stream Habitat Classification and
Inventory Procedures for Northern California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Z
Service, Pacific Southwest Region 5, Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin No. 1. z _,,I .
'~
ref
Platts, W.S., G. Armor, G.D. Boot, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienlaemper, D
G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell and J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for —.I 0
0
Evaluating Riparian Habitats With Applications to Management. U.S. Department of u) p
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-
w
221. - u_
Schneider, Phil. 1998. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. w O
Personal communication with Keith Fabing July 27, 1998. ri
ua _
Shapiro & Associates, Inc. 1997. Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Extension Project Wetland Assessment and c d
Mitigation Plan. Prepared for the City of Renton. Seattle, Washington. H w
ZjE
Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Z O .
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. w w
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Priority Habitats and Species Data Base. o
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. p 1--
w
Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 1998. Fisheries Report — Springbrook Creek. Letter to Mr. Paul T. Casey, H
Zelman Development Company, June 12, 1998. t!- p
Z
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie and J.J. Amos. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon U •N
Utilization, Volume 1: Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, P: H
Olympia, Washington. z
Final Stream Study
South 180th Street Grade Separation
21
July 2000
'Lz< ::: ^ 3ar1 :114 tti >r c asp
APPENDIX A
WILDLIFE SPECIES EXPECTED IN KING COUNTY
Z
_1-
6 W
-I C.)
UO.
CD C3
J =
cn u,.
WO
2
J
W
co
d.
W,
z�
I-o
z I-
W uj
U 0
O I--
W
H H
u' O
WZ
O -
-
O I-
Appendix A: Stream Habitat Types
Pools Code
Dammed Pool DPL z
Channel Confluence Pool CCP 1 z
Plunge Pool PLP re 6
Mid- Channel Pool MCP 6 D
Secondary Channel Pool SCP 0 o
Lateral Scour Pool - Log LSP -L N in
Lateral Scour Pool - Boulder LSP -B _1 �
Lateral Scour Pool - Rootwad LSP -RW N a-
Lateral Scour Pool - Bedrock LSP -BR
uj 0
Backwater Pool - Log BWP -L a
Backwater Pool - Boulder BWP -B u. u.
Backwater Pool - Rootwad BWP -RW I W
Corner Pool CRP z =
Pocket Water POW 1- 0
Z I-
Riffles 2 o
High Gradient Riffle HGR . o v�
Low- Gradient Riffle LGR 0 H
w
I U
Runs LL
Run RUN z
di
Step -Run SRN c.) i
O /
z
Other Habitat Types
Glide
Trench/Chute
Corner Pool
Cascade
Edgewater
GLIDE
TRC
CRP
CAS
EGW
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
WRIA BASIN _ #: KC BASIN #: DATE: - l 0 - q ES TIME: ' arn
1 Sp �
STREAM #:9 o STREAM ORDER SURVEY LENGTH: RX TO RX:
WEATHER R COONS: C.(& tot u w spa. r &I L* Sat
INVESTIGATORS: K r r^i
1
KEY:
RF = reference HT = habitat type CW = Channel width at ohwm CD = mean channel depth at ohwm
L = length of HT W = mean width of HT (> 5 msrmts) D = mean depth of HT (> 5 msrmts)
SS = streamside structure: 0 = no riparian zone [if 0, indicate lawn, road, buildings, etc.] 1= mature complex forest
2 = immature/even- age/disturbed 3 = shrub - dominated ( <20' high) 4 = grassland/meadow /pasture 5 = wetland
vegetated
(WIDTH)/LB -RB = left bnk -rgt bnk (TY) PE = ( C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/(M)ixed
SBST = dominant /subdominant substrate throughout HT: 1= bedrock 2 = silt/organic 3 = sand 4 = gravel ( <25
mm) 5 = gravel (25 mm —100 mm) 6 = cobble (100 mm — 256 mm) ? = boulder
PQI = pool quality index
LWD = large woody debris: (LE)ngth MEAN (DI)ameter (ST)ability: (A)nchored, (U)nanchored, ( ?) unknown
(V)ariety: (C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/( ?) uncertain CN = condition: (S)olid: (R)ecent/(0)1d (M)oderate:
(R)ecent/(0)1d (R)otted: (R)ecent/(0)ld (TY)pe: (J)am LOGS: (F)loating /(S)tranded
(B)ridge: (C)ollapsed/(P)artial (L)ateral (W)eir: (P)artial/(F)ull (S)tump
:���'N•., area,+ w! r�+ FS- r.•- "S"�:;',,ft...�.�...--rm?r .�ZCyeGr,+p�eM;;
v
SS/WIDTH/TY
LWD
RF
HT
W
D
L
CW
CD
(LB -RB)
' SBST
PQI
LE
DI
ST
V
CN
TY
22' .
—
22: '.
3 1.
glf/- ___,
Z
to "
4 3'
a W'
/ / - /
I'
(o'
/ / -
10'RB
I . I
�'
_../ -
2, V
mi /Z.'
I / -/ /
3, 2'
:+ Is-
/ 1_-___/ I
2, g
a+ zi
/ /_-__„/ /
.
/ / / /
'
Z
19
'
---
1 i
T/ ' /Q. -1/ 1 z' /,.2.
2 Y�21'
a Plan
t Sate
a
2'' 'F
'
It'
/ / -/
I ,1 ' co-ts'
R9
2.2'
At 12'
/ / - / /
2. I'ot
ei '
/ /_-_/
2, /
4 '
/__-__./
1, Z'
a {- 3'
-_/
/ 4_-___/ i
/I_ -_ / /
IA
At Ap:
!
'
!!n'
I /Ls' /.72. -j/ 15' / D
Z-
to I t Cet&.
e.:
LE -
sGad.t
(
Czar
:.
.5' 'a+
Ile
/ / - l /
C
&.
5Ditin,Y,
yl.4
1 f 4
12'
// -/ /
1. 3'
al- o'
..
/ / - /
I.T'of'Z'
/ / - /
>
I . S'
at- (o'
T / / - / /
. 5''
f 4'
% ./ -
0 ' .tit
Z.'
/ / -//
/ /_- / /
`v
/ /_ _/ /
_ / / / /
/ /_ -_/ /
___,/
I___-___/ /
WRIA BASIN _ #: KC BASIN #: DATE: - l 0 - q ES TIME: ' arn
1 Sp �
STREAM #:9 o STREAM ORDER SURVEY LENGTH: RX TO RX:
WEATHER R COONS: C.(& tot u w spa. r &I L* Sat
INVESTIGATORS: K r r^i
1
KEY:
RF = reference HT = habitat type CW = Channel width at ohwm CD = mean channel depth at ohwm
L = length of HT W = mean width of HT (> 5 msrmts) D = mean depth of HT (> 5 msrmts)
SS = streamside structure: 0 = no riparian zone [if 0, indicate lawn, road, buildings, etc.] 1= mature complex forest
2 = immature/even- age/disturbed 3 = shrub - dominated ( <20' high) 4 = grassland/meadow /pasture 5 = wetland
vegetated
(WIDTH)/LB -RB = left bnk -rgt bnk (TY) PE = ( C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/(M)ixed
SBST = dominant /subdominant substrate throughout HT: 1= bedrock 2 = silt/organic 3 = sand 4 = gravel ( <25
mm) 5 = gravel (25 mm —100 mm) 6 = cobble (100 mm — 256 mm) ? = boulder
PQI = pool quality index
LWD = large woody debris: (LE)ngth MEAN (DI)ameter (ST)ability: (A)nchored, (U)nanchored, ( ?) unknown
(V)ariety: (C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/( ?) uncertain CN = condition: (S)olid: (R)ecent/(0)1d (M)oderate:
(R)ecent/(0)1d (R)otted: (R)ecent/(0)ld (TY)pe: (J)am LOGS: (F)loating /(S)tranded
(B)ridge: (C)ollapsed/(P)artial (L)ateral (W)eir: (P)artial/(F)ull (S)tump
:���'N•., area,+ w! r�+ FS- r.•- "S"�:;',,ft...�.�...--rm?r .�ZCyeGr,+p�eM;;
v
WRIA BASIN #: KC BASIN #: DATE: 9 - 1 D - ` S TIME: I Z '- 3O fm
STREAM #: YI/g cE STREAM ORDER SURVEY LENGTH: RX TO RX:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
INVESTIGATORS: K f � r3:
KEY:
RF = reference HT = habitat type CW = Channel width at ohwm CD = mean channel depth at ohwm
L = length of HT W = mean width of HT (> 5 msrmts) D = mean depth of HT (> 5 msrmts)
SS = streamside structure: 0 = no riparian zone [if 0, indicate lawn, road, buildings, etc.] 1= mature complex forest
2 = immature/even- age/disturbed 3 = shrub - dominated ( <20' high) 4 = grassland/meadow /pasture 5 = wetland
vegetated
(WIDTH)/LB -RB = left bnk -rgt bnk (TY) PE = ( C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/(M)ixed
SBST = dominant /subdominant substrate throughout HT: 1= bedrock 2 = silt/organic 3 = sand 4 = gravel ( <25
mm) 5 = gravel (25 mm —100 mm) 6 = cobble (100 mm — 256 mm) ? = boulder
PQI = pool quality index
-- LWD = large woody debris: (LE)ngth MEAN (DI)ameter (ST)ability: (A)nchored, (U)nanchored, ( ?) unknown
(V)ariety: (C)oniferous/(D)eciduous /( ?) uncertain CN = condition: (S)olid: (R)ecent/(0)ld (M)oderate:
(R)ecent/(0)ld (R)otted: (R)ecent/(0)ld (TY)pe: (J)am LOGS: (F)loating /(S)tranded
(B)ridge: (C)ollapsed/(P)artial (L)ateral (W)eir: (P)artial/(F)ull (S)tump
lyfr';`6.' Ant NVU 1 :l?? 145`<'.h.'c 4
SS/WIDTH/TY
LWD
RF
HT
W
D
L
CW
CD
(LB -RB)
SBST
PQI
LE
DI
ST
V
CN
TY
2fik
y'"i
t 3'
13'
LL/Z6 /,- .1,120 /J
2
2,1'atII'
/ / - / /
3
1213
1. b'
4.+ q'
/ /_-___/
3.1'
a }'
_/ / -/ /.
1
3. z'a+5'
/ /_-___/
2' o►.4
3'
/_- l /
___/
/I_- /_/____
'
3 A .
I S'
3 E/ 8 ' 4D-F4 IV D
b
1.5'44
13'
/ / -/ /
2-
2 1 c-F
II'
/ /_-__./ /
2.
g
,
2 ' 441'
/ / - / /
2
nu&ck
5
2' a{-
'r'
...../ /___-_/ /
Co
cololol■
z I IV+
5
I i / I
(a
co(oble
1, S'
41- 3'
/____/_-__/_/____
Sf z. ttretAta
1
piutek
/___-__/
/ -_I /
Cb E4ai
u at Q
to fO %.c
4.. lAi.
54 raa
m
/ / - /_ / _
Ntt
—
ti 3
eltA
_/ I___-__,/ /
/ /
/ /..._-__/ i
/ I____-__/ /
_./ /
i I /
i I /
___ I___-___/ /
___/ I___-___/ /
/
I / - I /
/ /_-___/ /
�i
i
WRIA BASIN #: KC BASIN #: DATE: 9 - 1 D - ` S TIME: I Z '- 3O fm
STREAM #: YI/g cE STREAM ORDER SURVEY LENGTH: RX TO RX:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
INVESTIGATORS: K f � r3:
KEY:
RF = reference HT = habitat type CW = Channel width at ohwm CD = mean channel depth at ohwm
L = length of HT W = mean width of HT (> 5 msrmts) D = mean depth of HT (> 5 msrmts)
SS = streamside structure: 0 = no riparian zone [if 0, indicate lawn, road, buildings, etc.] 1= mature complex forest
2 = immature/even- age/disturbed 3 = shrub - dominated ( <20' high) 4 = grassland/meadow /pasture 5 = wetland
vegetated
(WIDTH)/LB -RB = left bnk -rgt bnk (TY) PE = ( C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/(M)ixed
SBST = dominant /subdominant substrate throughout HT: 1= bedrock 2 = silt/organic 3 = sand 4 = gravel ( <25
mm) 5 = gravel (25 mm —100 mm) 6 = cobble (100 mm — 256 mm) ? = boulder
PQI = pool quality index
-- LWD = large woody debris: (LE)ngth MEAN (DI)ameter (ST)ability: (A)nchored, (U)nanchored, ( ?) unknown
(V)ariety: (C)oniferous/(D)eciduous /( ?) uncertain CN = condition: (S)olid: (R)ecent/(0)ld (M)oderate:
(R)ecent/(0)ld (R)otted: (R)ecent/(0)ld (TY)pe: (J)am LOGS: (F)loating /(S)tranded
(B)ridge: (C)ollapsed/(P)artial (L)ateral (W)eir: (P)artial/(F)ull (S)tump
lyfr';`6.' Ant NVU 1 :l?? 145`<'.h.'c 4
STREAM #: Y)LiJI) STREAM ORDER: SURVEY LENGTH: RX TO RX:
WEATHER CONDITIONS: kiP}'
WRIA BASIN #: KC BASIN #: DATE: T - / ( ..f+ - TIME: 11 ' OD el v
INVESTIGATORS:
KEY:
RF = reference HT = habitat type CW = Channel width at ohwm CD = mean channel depth at ohwm
L = length of HT W = mean width of HT (> 5 msrmts) D = mean depth of HT (> 5 msrmts)
SS = streamside structure: 0 = no riparian zone [if 0, indicate lawn, road, buildings, etc.] 1= mature complex forest
2 = immature/even- age/disturbed 3 = shrub - dominated ( <20' high) 4 = grassland/meadow /pasture 5 = wetland
vegetated
(WIDTH) LB -RB = left bnk -rgt bnk (TY) PE = ( C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/(M)ixed
SBST = dominant /subdominant substrate throughout HT: 1= bedrock 2 = silt/organic 3 = sand 4 = gravel ( <25
mm) 5 = gravel (25 mm -100 mm) 6 = cobble (100 mm - 256 mm) 7 = boulder
PQI = pool quality index
LWD = large woody debris: (LE)ngth MEAN (DI)ameter (ST)ability: (A)nchored, (U)nanchored, ( ?) unknown
(V)ariety: (C)oniferous/(D)eciduous /( ?) uncertain CN = condition: (S)olid: (R)ecent/(0)ld (M)oderate:
(R)ecent/(0)ld (R)otted: (R)ecent/(0)ld (TY)pe: (J)am LOGS: (F)loating /(S)tranded
(B)ridge: (C)ollapsed/(P)artial (L)ateral (W)eir: (P)artial(F)ull (S)tump
ym
14 :g*4=4 ,, w PMS
LWD
S
RF
HT
W
D
L
CW
CD
(LB -RB)
SBST
PQI
LE
DI
ST
V
CN
TY
I
IAA
0 1 1
q'
±/- =a- 4 /. /.
&I z
(Wm
af t
_/___/_-___/ /
1 - W
Co me.
w I Nx14Ck.
Ilto'
ad- 2'
____/ I___-__/___/
b a - ARS)
.5'otf2'
/ /,....-__/
''
31to ad
5'
/ / -/
I " c ‘4-6,
'
/"/_-___/
O e+
a''
_f /_-__/
_ /I_- / /
-7 /
Z.
pp.
S'
±/ ID'/ / - /,..
Z
4-Iai-
t'
i i i i
kc'4
-kg
'
Q.1. `
- z.'
// - /
3 . Ste#
3'
/ / -//
2. Safi
4
,_/ /_-_/
2 ot
/ /___-__/ /
& 4i
!a '
/ /_-__./
/ /._-__/ /
C
.w
. 2
_
/ / - / /
_:_/ -
/
�� -I/
STREAM #: Y)LiJI) STREAM ORDER: SURVEY LENGTH: RX TO RX:
WEATHER CONDITIONS: kiP}'
WRIA BASIN #: KC BASIN #: DATE: T - / ( ..f+ - TIME: 11 ' OD el v
INVESTIGATORS:
KEY:
RF = reference HT = habitat type CW = Channel width at ohwm CD = mean channel depth at ohwm
L = length of HT W = mean width of HT (> 5 msrmts) D = mean depth of HT (> 5 msrmts)
SS = streamside structure: 0 = no riparian zone [if 0, indicate lawn, road, buildings, etc.] 1= mature complex forest
2 = immature/even- age/disturbed 3 = shrub - dominated ( <20' high) 4 = grassland/meadow /pasture 5 = wetland
vegetated
(WIDTH) LB -RB = left bnk -rgt bnk (TY) PE = ( C)oniferous/(D)eciduous/(M)ixed
SBST = dominant /subdominant substrate throughout HT: 1= bedrock 2 = silt/organic 3 = sand 4 = gravel ( <25
mm) 5 = gravel (25 mm -100 mm) 6 = cobble (100 mm - 256 mm) 7 = boulder
PQI = pool quality index
LWD = large woody debris: (LE)ngth MEAN (DI)ameter (ST)ability: (A)nchored, (U)nanchored, ( ?) unknown
(V)ariety: (C)oniferous/(D)eciduous /( ?) uncertain CN = condition: (S)olid: (R)ecent/(0)ld (M)oderate:
(R)ecent/(0)ld (R)otted: (R)ecent/(0)ld (TY)pe: (J)am LOGS: (F)loating /(S)tranded
(B)ridge: (C)ollapsed/(P)artial (L)ateral (W)eir: (P)artial(F)ull (S)tump
ym
14 :g*4=4 ,, w PMS
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.