Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL16-0014 - JASON RICH / KING COUNTY - LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A: SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTLAKE TO SOUND TRAIL - SEGMENT A SITE APN: 2323049001 APPROVED PARENT PROJECT NO: PL16-0014 PROJECT NO: L16-0016 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director July 27, 2016 NOTICE OF DECISION FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO: Jason Rich, Applicant Rick Still, City of Tukwila; BNSF; UP King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology, NW Regional Office Washington State Attorney General Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Indian Tribe Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition City of Renton John Neller This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number Applicant I. PROJECT INFORMATION L16-0016 Jason Rich Type of Permit Applied for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Project Description Construction of the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, which is 1.2 miles Location North end of Fort Dent Park including parts of the UP and BNSF railroad corridors; Tax parcels: 2323049001; 7229500360; 7229500340; 2323049003; 2323049005 Associated Files L16-0017; (City of Renton files: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V) Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: Heavy Industrial and Low Density Residential with Public Recreation Overlay Notice of Decision Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A L16-0016 II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City of Renton SEPA Responsiible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Community Development Director has determined that based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report, the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to the following conditions: Issuance of a Tukwila Public Works permit that includes: a. revised Project Plans to show: removal of invasives and a planting plan for natives; and strategic on -site retention of logs; specifically, all evergreen trees and all deciduous trees eight inches or greater, that are scheduled for removal, so that habitat is not negatively impacted. b. Submittal of an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Segment A that includes notification of the City of Tukwila or the City of Renton depending on the location of any discovery and best practices for educating on -site workers to avoid disturbance of archaeological/cultural resources. The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to the Tukwila Municipal Code Permit Application Types and Procedures section (TMC18.104.010.) Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other Federal, State or local statues, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.140(8)) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the project as approved and any conditions thereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT MAY NOT BEGIN AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY-ONE (2:1) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173-14-090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IIN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Construction must begin within 2 years from the effective date of the permit and be substantially completed within 5 years of the effective date of the permit. The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of receipt as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). Notice of Decision Lake to Sound Trail, SegmentA L16-0016 III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 the decision by the City of Tukwila to issue this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may only be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Appeals must be filed with the Shoreline Hearings Board within 21-days from the filing of this permit with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140. For more detailed information on appeals, refer to RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08.* IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 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 Moira Carr Bradshaw, who may be contacted at 206-431-3651 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. The notice board must be removed at the expiration of the appeal period unless an appeal is filed. Jack ce, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila I. City of Tukwi Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director Staff Report Shoreline Substantial Development Summary of Proposed Action Construction of the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, which is 1.2 miles and spans the City of Renton and Tukwila II. General Information Project Name: File Number: Associated Files: Applicant: Location: Comprehensive plan/ Zoning district: SEPA Determination: Staff Contact: Attachments: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A L16-0016 — City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L16-0017 — City of Tukwila Shoreline Variance; (City of Renton files: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V) Jason Rich, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks North end of Fort Dent Park including parts of the UP and BNSF railroad corridors; Tax parcels: 2323049001; 7229500360; 7229500340; 2323049003; 2323049005 Heavy Industrial and Low Density Residential with Public Recreation Overlay Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated Moira Carr Bradshaw 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Tukwila Shoreline Armoring Map 3. Applicant's No Net Loss Analysis 4. City of Renton SEPA Documents - SEPA Checklist, SEPA Staff Report and SEPA Determination 5. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe E-mail dated May 11, 2016 Page 1of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 6. City of Renton comment letter dated May 10, 2016 7. Tukwila Hearing Examiner Variance Recommendation III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW in the City of Renton, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges (BNSF and Union Pacific) to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park in the City of Tukwila (See 90-percent plans - Attachment 1). Approximately 12 % of this segment or -750 feet is in the City of Tukwila. The Lake to Sound trail will eventually connect the shorelines of Lake Washington, the Cedar, Black and Green Rivers and Puget Sound and will serve residents from all parts of the region, employees who use the trail for commuting and recreational purposes, and tourists who are visiting the area and staying at one of the many local hotels within walking distance of this trail and any of its connecting trails. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides nonmotorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. In addition to the overall request for a permit to construct the trail in the shoreline, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Shoreline Overlay District standard of an 18 foot wide trail. The proposed project is using a 16 foot wide cross section. The applicant's request for a two foot variance from Shoreline standard was recommended for approval by the Tukwila Hearing Examiner. Further discussion of the variance is in the Public Access discussion below. Page2of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit KRtiG CO:'JUTTI req.. t Anna I Concrete Roeretig Pent ELli tk River RJ;nan Forest .: ■ Para+n.t14 I<n Ftrt Dca1 Pet end swine S; Q..a C ocnrai cETY OF TUKWILA • •R rya aid Ana Prod ft�.er Ra p St :o r ' CITY OF REU Tpt1 :mow c caret talC aIlY W:rya:a i MSOa Legend: in 4=M T el p-a'e t PAT ns Figure 1- Project Area map End,' Figure- 1-1 Vicinity Map tat p Souk/ rrw — Sppinw t A IV. Shoreline Description The subject Black and Green River shorelines are developed with two different conditions. The majority of the project site in Fort Dent Park has multiple sports field and parking. The secondary portion of the project site is railroad crossing for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union Pacific, each of whom has adjacent 100 foot rights of way. The majority of shoreline is the Black River, which flows into the Green River. Shoreline armoring varies for the project. See Attachment 2. A levee and regional trail is developed along the Green River shoreline in the Fort Dent portion, whereas no armoring exists along the Black River. Page3of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit V. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) Tukwila SMP There are 12 goals within the Tukwila SMP. The following are goals are supported by the proposed project: Goal 2: Expanded value of the river as a community and regional resource through regional coordination of shoreline management programs and through programs that foster river appreciation and awareness, involving partnerships among businesses, schools, and government and community organizations. Goal 3: Development along the shoreline that fosters the economic vitality of Tukwila while preserving the long-term benefits of the river. Goal 6: Increase the amount and diversity of opportunities for public recreation and access to and along the river, including visual and cultural access, access to the water's edge, opportunities for small boat navigation and access, and connections to other neighborhoods, consistent with the shoreline character. Goal 7: Safe corridors and amenities for pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transportation, allowing more citizens to access and enjoy the river. Goal 8: Recognition of the river's contribution to Tukwila history and community identity through identification, enhancement, restoration, and protection of sites with historic and cultural value and through development of interpretive and educational programs. Goal 9: Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environment resources along the river, including trees, wildlife habitat and features with value for long-term public, scientific and educational uses. Partial list of Tukwila SMP policies Below is a list of policies in italic that are particularly relevant to the proposed project. Policy 5.1.2, Urban Conservancy Environment: In the Urban Conservancy Environment priority shall be given to the following: • Development that promotes vegetation conservation and enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and preservation of water quality to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Applicant's response: Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter removed within the shoreline zone will be replaced as prescribed in TMC 18.44.080 requirements. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing compliance with the City's tree replacement standards for the Shoreline Environment. Vegetation conservation and enhancement could be promoted with large woody debris retention from the cut trees. The small size of the tree Page 4 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit replacement will have a negative short term impact. Attachment 1, Sheet MP1 indicates that 15 trees are being removed; 10 of which require replacement per the City's standards. 53 trees in the project's vicinity are being saved. The applicant shows 57 replacement trees primarily planted along the riverbank. • Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent use, and uses that prevent and/or minimize flood damage; Applicant's response: The project will not increase the amount of fill in the 100-year floodplain (cuts and fills are balanced, with no net fill); therefore, the project will minimize the potential for flooding. Staff Analysis: Concur with Applicant's response. • Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control, consider impacts to public views, and allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration; Applicant's response: This project will not interfere with navigation and flood control, not impact public views, and allow for fish and wildlife passage. Staff Analysis: Concur with Applicant's response. • Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the land and water that do not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects. Applicant's response: In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. The trail is designed to integrate into the existing landscape with as little alteration as possible. The proposed paved trail will follow an existing dirt path and will generally follow existing contours and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and discharge locations. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The project will replant with native vegetation as prescribed in the TMC 18.44.080. Page5of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Staff Analysis:: Concur with Applicant's response. • Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and when ecological impacts can be mitigated Applicant's response: The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The trail also connects directly to the Green River Trail and indirectly to the Interurban Trail and Cedar River Trail. The loss ottrees will be mitigated perTMC 18.44.080. Staff Analysis: Concur with Applicant's response with the additional comment that even with compliance with the City's tree replacement ratio within the Shoreline environment, there are short term negative consequences due to the loss of large woody debris . The applicant has therefore modified their proposal by placing trees that are being cut down on -site to replace the wood recruitment function that is temporarily lost. Policy 5.2.1: Coordinate shoreline planning and management activities with other local jurisdictions and their plans such as the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan and the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan to establish region -wide consistency in addressing river issues with regional implications, such as economic development, public access, wildlife habitat, water quality control and flood control. Applicant's response: This project is a joint partnership between King County, the Cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac, and Des Moines that will limprove public access to five different shorelines of the State. The applicant has also stated, "1 had our engineer look at the slopes and distances and it seems like the 200 cubic yard shoreline project would fit easily with the current trail alignment." Staff Analysis: The Applicant's response is correct with respect to regional trail planning. Regional water resource and salmon recovery planning have identified several potential projects along this section of shoreline that would benefit ecological efforts to restore salmon habitat and historic fish runs within the Green River. A Salmon Habitat Plan for the Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA9): Central Puget Sound Watershed contains a list of restoration projects, several of which are adjacent to this project. The projects (Exhibit 35 of Attachment 4) are not designed or funded; however, staff has consulted with staftfrom King County and Tukwila that are involved in river restoration projects. Page6of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LG-17 is not in the immediate vicinity of the subject project but is instead oriented along the Green River shoreline of Fort Dent Park. The trail project stops at the intersection of the Green River Trail. The intersection of the two trails being created by this SSDP project cannot be modified in such a way as to change its impact on the potential future levee and trail relocation project. LG-18 is oriented along the Black River shoreline of Fort Dent Park. The concept for the "Black River Marsh" would be to excavate the bank and create a marsh at a lower river elevation thereby allowing water related plantings and water inundation. As noted above, although these WRIA 9 projects are not designed or funded, conceptual plans for their potential implementation were considered when evaluating this proposal. In particular, Project LG-18 "Black River Marsh" is envisioned along the bank adjacent to the proposed trail. Cultural research indicates however that the bank is the location of an ancient Native American village and the location of artifacts, which makes excavation for the LG-18 project problematic. Additionally, the applicant has stated that the 200 cubic yards of grading involved with LG-18 project could be accommodated with the proposed alignment of the trail. Policy5.6.1 Retain and improve areas identified as important in the network of public access to the river, including cross-town connections, former railroad right of ways and unimproved street end right of ways, historic sites, unique natural features or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential. Maintain existing parks along the shoreline and acquire additional park land to increase access and recreation opportunities. Applicant's response: As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by of a Green River Trail pedestrian bridge on the north end of the Park. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future, to the Cedar River Trail. Page7of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Staff Analysis: Concur with Applicant's response. Policy5.6.4 Design, locate and manage public access for diverse types and variable levels of intensity in order to minimize impacts on vulnerable features of the natural environment and to minimize conflicts with private property uses. Applicant's response: The proposed trail will provide non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others of all ages and capabilities. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed trail is 12-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders, which is a smaller footprint than what is required under TMC 18.44.100 (A) (1), but still in compliance with regional standards given the anticipated uses and volumes of trail users. The only private property use in the project vicinity is the BNSF railroad operation. The trail would pass beneath an existing rail bridge, avoiding conflicts with this use. Staff Analysis: Concurs with applicant's response with the addition that the trail will pass underneath two railroad bridges with the inclusion of the Union Pacific. Policy 5.9.1 Ensure that shoreline development results in no net loss of shoreline ecological function, minimizes impacts on wildlife and that significant vegetation, sandbars, wetlands, watercourses, and other critical areas identified as important for habitat are maintained through the proper location, design, construction, and management of all shoreline uses and activities. Staff Analysis: The applicant has provided a no net loss analysis (NNL) that is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. The NNL analysis addresses the mitigation sequencing criteria in the SMP. The response to the criteria is below: a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Page8of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Applicant Response: Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing critical area and buffer impacts to the greatest extent feasible with no permanent or temporary impacts to the Black or Green Rivers anticipated. The trail alignment was selected to follow the existing topography where feasible, and to integrate into the existing landscape. The proposed paved trail will largely follow an existing dirt path and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and infiltration. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed project will adhere to the applicable tree protection, retention, and replacement ratios as described in TMC 18.44.080 including the installation of native plantings. To ensure the plantings are successful, the project will comply with applicable vegetation management requirements specified in TMC 18.44.080 (D). All temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. King County will apply the following additional strategies to critical area and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: • Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project water bodies„ • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground -disturbing activities. Staff Analysis: As noted earlier, although the replacement trees will be planted per the required ratio, the applicant will also be placing logs of the significant trees being cut on site to act as large woody debris and to mitigate for the temporal loss. Shoreline Environment Designation The shoreline environment designation for the shoreline within the project corridor in Tukwila is Urban Conservancy; the purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to Page 9 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction is divided into a buffer area and non -buffer area. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment where levees are present is 125 feet and is 100 feet where levees are not present. Attachment 2 is a map of the armoring along shorelines in Tukwila. Public access is a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy environment buffer, provided that the trail meets the applicable requirements of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and Tukwila Municipal Code. VI. SHORELINE REGULATIONS A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with the shoreline master program. (Shoreline Administration (TMC 18.44.130(B) (3.)) The relevant SMP policies were discussed above. Below is a discussion of the relevant shoreline regulations that are incorporated into the zoning code that apply to this permit application. See Attachment 3 for the applicant's response to the SMP no net loss criteria and a description of the project. Principally Permitted Uses (TMC 18.44.030) (C) a1)) The priority for City -owned property within the shoreline jurisdiction is for habitat restoration followed by water enjoyment uses, public access, passive recreation, passive open space uses or public education. Urban Conservancy Permitted Uses (TMC 18.44.050) The Urban Conservancy Environment - Uses section of the Shoreline Chapter (TMC 18.44.050(d)) lists "public and or private promenades, footpaths or trails" as a permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy environment. Development Standards (TMC 18.44.070) A. Urban Conservancy Standards Projects and their uses must comply with the Shoreline Overlay District development standards (TMC 18.44.070) for the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment. ■ Setbacks The proposed trail project does not need to meet the setback requirement, 125 feet along the Green River and 100 feet along the Black River, because public access is allowed within the river buffers. Page l0 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Maximum Height The proposed fencing associated with the project will meet the height restrictions of 15 feet within the river buffer and 45 feet outside the river buffer. • Lighting No trail or associated project lighting is proposed within the City of Tukwila section of the project. B. Surface Water and Water Qualms The size and nature of the trail in Tukwila is small enough that water quantity controls are not required nor is water quality degradation a concern. The proposed project shall meet all adopted surface water quality regulations. There will be an increase in dogs being walked along the shoreline which could have water quality impacts that are not regulated. C. Flood Hazard Reduction No flood hazard reduction measures are proposed as part of or for this project. See Applicant's response above to Policy 5.1.2 regarding shoreline armoring. D. Shoreline Stabilization The Plans show provisions to minimize or prevent erosion of adjacent uplands includinge standard best management practices to control and prevent erosion and sedimentation from entering surface water as well as minimizing the area of disturbance. E. Archaeological, Cultural and Historical Resources. A Cultural Resources Survey was conducted for the project and an Area of Potential Effect (APE) was identified. The APE for Segment A is located along an access road currently used as a pedestrian footpath. The easternmost extent of the APE is the end of the cul-de-sac of Naches Avenue Southwest in the city of Renton. The westernmost extent is located near Fort Dent Park in the city of Tukwila. The APE is one mile long. The width of the APE includes the 18-foot project corridor (Figure 2). The 18-foot project corridor (the construction footprint) is defined as the area within which potential archaeological deposits could be affected (Figure 2). This boundary includes all potential vertical and horizontal ground disturbance associated with the project. The vertical extent of the construction footprint boundary is from the level of existing ground surface to 3 feet below ground surface, which allows for the maximum extent of potential subsurface ground disturbance. The Shoreline Code specifies that interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided subject to the requirements of the public access section when such signage does not compromise the protection of these features from tampering, damage and or destruction. Page 11 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Below is the map from the Survey showing the portion of Segment A that is located within Tukwila? lewarch 1996 Archaeological Site Boundary Area of Potential Effects Construction Footprint 1\\ _ i rcc Figure 2 - Map of area of potential effects relative to trail alignment in Tukwila. "...the western portion of the project areas is none the less considered sensitive for the presence of precontact archaeological resources because of the nearby presence of 45KI438 and known ethnographic villages." The authors of the Survey conclude, "To ensure significant cultural resources are appropriately treated in this event, it s recommended that a Monitoring Plan and Unanticipated Discovery Protocol be developed before and implemented during construction within the recorded boundaries and a 100 foot radius of site 45KI438." Page 12 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit F. Environmental Impact Mitigation The applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a no net loss of ecological functions. When impacts are unavoidable mitigation sequencing must be followed in specific order, which is discussed above under Policy 5.9.1. G. Off Street Parking and Loading No new parking or loading will be developed as part of this project. H. Land altering All land altering activities shall meet the following standards: 1. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria: a. The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use; The trail is designed to fit into the existing landscape with as little alteration as possible. The project will not increase the amount of fill in the 100 year floodplain as cuts and fills are balanced, with no net fill. b. Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; See "no net loss" analysis - Attachment 3. c. Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; Best management practices are proposed to address temporary erosion and control. d. Public access and river navigation are not diminished; The project will improve public access to the existing Green River Trail and create additional shoreline access by constructing a trail along the Black River. Eventually this Lake to Sound Trail segment will connect the public to Lake Washington, the Cedar River and Puget Sound. e. The project complies with all federal and state requirements and the project has been coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; The project has been designed to comply with all federal and state requirements. f. The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section; See "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping" below. g• source. Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean Page13of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit The source of the fill to be used in the shoreline jurisdiction has not been identified. During development of the City's SMP the discussion on fill was focused on fill placed water ward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The fill in this project will be landward of the OHWM and source of the fill shall be identified as part of the Public Works permit application and review process. 2. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish habitats in accordance with the standards in the Grading Chapter, TMC 16.54. The project will use Best Management Practices, such as silt fences, mulches and erosion control fabrics to reduce runoff and minimize erosion and sediment transport. Vegetation Protection and Landscaping (TMC 18.44.080) The Clearing, Grading and TESC Plan (Attachment 1) shows the existing trees within the project area and trees that are proposed for retention and removal. 15 trees are proposed to be removed, 10 of which require replacement per the City's standards. The City's tree replacement requirements and the standard is dependent on the diameter of the trees being removed. The applicant provides a replacement table in their application. The plans do not currently meet the City requirement (TMC18.44.080 (C)) for removal of invasive vegetation and the planting of native vegetation along the river buffer and bank. Review and issuance of the Public Works permit will require revision to Attachment 1 to show removal and planting per the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Sensitive Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction (TMC 18.44.090) There are no sensitive areas within the project area Public Access to the Shoreline (TMC 18.44.100) There are general standards, requirements and specifications for public access on publicly owned shorelines. (Public Access to the Shoreline section of the Shoreline Overlay District (TMC 18.44.100(B) (C) (D)) They are: • adequate provision for non -motorized access; • the prevention of trespass onto adjacent properties through landscaping, fencing or other appropriate measures; ■ signage indicating the public right of way to shoreline areas; and • mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of the shoreline from public use. Page 14 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit The project includes a connection to the Green River Trail. The proposed trail width is 16 feet, which includes a 12' wide asphalt path with 2' wide gravel shoulders on each side. The Tukwila SMP specifies an 18' minimum width for trails. The applicant requested a shoreline variance for their proposed 16-foot wide trail. The City of Tukwila Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on June 7, 2016 on the variance request and is recommending approval to the Department of Ecology, who has final decision -making authority for shoreline variances. See Attachment 7. The proposed trail width is 2' wider than the Green River trail to which it is connecting, a slight improvement over existing conditions. Shoreline Design Guidelines (TMC 18.44.110) This section of the TMC does not apply (TMC 18.44.110) as no buildings are being constructed. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS The public comment period closed on May 13, 2016. E-mail comments were received from Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. (Attachment 5) The e-mail from the Tribe raised concerns about: 1. The temporal loss of future wood recruitment function due to the removal of 15 trees larger than 4 inches in diameter. The applicant responded that "KC Parks will use several of the tree trunks along the bank as shown in the previously submitted sketch. This addition will be reflected in the 95% plans." Staff believes that all conifers and all deciduous trees over eight inches that are being cut should be retained on the project site in order to mitigate the temporal loss of wood. 2. The potential impact of the trail project on projects identified in the Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan - WIRA 9. See discussion above under Policy 5.2.1 3. Full safe access to Indian fishing sites on the Green River during project construction. The applicant responded that, "The project does not intend to limit access to fishing sites along the Green River. The limits of construction are constrained to the clearing and grading limits shown on the drawings, and well above the OHWM." Page 15 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-001.6-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Staff agrees that the limits of trail construction are about 18 feet wide and above the OHWM; however, the vegetation and landscaping mitigation standards will require work outside the trail construction area. The clearing and planting should not require long periods of work and will be limited to a relatively small section of river shoreline. The City of Renton provided a comment letter (Attachment 6) asking that mitigating measure identified during the SEPA review of this project should be conditions of Tukwila permits: 1. All construction activity shall stop if cultural resource artifacts are discovered during construction. Notification of concerned Tribes, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the City of Renton Planning Division. The applicant responded that, "The construction contract will contain an Unanticipated Discovery Plan directing the contractor to stop work in the case of a discovery. The plan spells out the required notifications has been implemented successfully on the recent Lake to Sound Segment B project." Staff will ensure the Unanticipated Discovery Plan its referenced in the construction contract and submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the Tukwila Public Works permit. 2. Contractors working in Tukwila and hauling within Renton shall comply with City of Renton haul route hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. The applicant responded that they understand and agree with the City of Renton statute. Staff has no further comment. John Neller provided an email on May 11, 2016 saying that he does not have any issues with the proposed project as long as it is paved. VIII. SEPA The City of Renton acted as the SEPA lead agency, as the majority of the Segment A trail is within their jurisdiction. Renton issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on January 15, 2016. The SEPA determination, staff report and SEPA Checklist are found in Attachment 4. The five mitigation conditions are: 1. Provision of an updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge 2. Compliance with geotechnical recommendations in the existing and updated geotechnical report for the bridge Page 16 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 3. Compliance with the bridge construction avoidance measures of the No Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail 4. Compliance with the planting plan and monitoring stipulated in the Critical Areas Study. 5. Project construction stoppage should Native American archaeological or cultural artifacts be found and notification of the Tribes, City and WA state Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. IX. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Lake to Sound Trail will enhance the Green and Black rivers role as a community and regional resource, will increase the amount of recreational activity along the shorelines, and will foster economic vitality while preserving the river's benefits. 2. The length of the trail in Tukwila is a minor length relative to the overall segment being constructed in the City of Renton (approximately 12 % or 750 feet of the total 1.2 mile improvement.) 3. The Tukwila SMP states that there are a sequential list of preferred uses for the shoreline. Preserving shoreline resources and ecology takes precedence over public access and recreation. The status and future ability to enhance the ecology and to preserve the cultural resource in the project area takes precedence and has been considered in the decision making, design and permit conditions. 4. The applicant's collaboration with the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads will ensure that the railroad's private property rights are preserved and their use of their property is not curtailed by the proposed development. Because the UP and BNSF railroads bridge the proposed trail, the project's fencing will improve deterrence of potential public access to their private property. 5. Because the majority of the project is on public park land and separated from the private uses, additional signage and fencing, other than that which is proposed, is not necessary to indicate separation of uses as suggested by the Public Access section of the shoreline regulations. 6. The Lake to Sound Trail proponents will be paving over a mapped Native American cultural resource site. The artifacts are shallow - 3-4 feet - and signage could alert the public and endanger them through potential looting so interpretative signage is not recommended. 7. A mitigating measure for the Determination of Non -significance was that "If any Native American grave(s) or archaeology/cultural resources are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton Planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committee and the WA stat Dept of Archeology and Historic Preservation." Because the artifacts are shallow, the Unanticipated Discovery Plan should identify best practices such that the on -site workers are briefed Page 17 of 19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit on identification of probable artifacts and on grading techniques and practices that minimize disturbance of the land. 8. Other than the Code's required removal of invasives and planting with natives, restoration of the shoreline is not part of the proposed project. The potential future Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA-9) restoration project may be limited because of the cultural sensitivity of the site; however, the trail is located such that the desired 200 cubic yards of bank removal would be possible without interference from the new trail. 9. The natural character of the shoreline is degraded and the shoreline code's requirement for invasive removal and tree replacement will improve the overall character of the shoreline. The removal and replacement of trees will mitigate some of the projects impacts on habitat; however, wood loading is currently inadequate and would be diminished further by the removal of mature trees. Retaining large woody debris on the site would benefit the ecology of the area and meet the goal of no net loss. 10. Under a separate land use application, the applicant's request for a variance from Tukwila's adopted trail width from 18 feet to 16 feet was recommended for approval by the City's Hearing Examiner. As noted above, the decision maker is the Department of Ecology. 11. The proposed project is consistent with the shoreline goals and policies as it provides public access while mitigating its ecological impact and enhances an informal public way along the Black River. The project preserves the high intensity heavy industrial railroad corridor while allowing the public access improvement. The project will expand the value of the river as a community and regional resource but is also a partnership among many public agencies thereby recognizing the shared importance and interconnected character of shorelines throughout the region. The project will also expand the Green River Trail by creating an east west connection. 12. The proposed project will foster the economic vitality of this community as well as others along its corridor while also preserving the long term benefits of the river by creating a recreational amenity. Fort Dent Park provides access to amenities such as parking, benches, drinking fountains and handicap access. 13. The proposed project will be consistent with the shoreline regulations with modifications to the plans that show removal of invasives and planting of natives in the river buffer and banks and the submittal of a maintenance plan for the new landscaping. X. RECOMMENDATION Approve the shoreline substantial development permit with the following conditions: Page18of19 Lake to Sound Trail Staff Report L16-0016-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Issuance of a Tukwila Public Works permit that includes: a. revised Project Plans to show: • removal of invasives and a planting plan for natives; and • strategic on -site retention of logs; specifically, all evergreen trees and all deciduous trees eight inches or greater, that are scheduled for removal, so that habitat is not negatively impacted. b. Submittal of an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Segment A that includes notification of the City of Tukwila or the City of Renton depending on the location of any discovery and best practices for educating on -site workers to avoid disturbance of archaeological/cultural resources. Page19of19 PATH: C: \PMX\Temp\AcPublIeh_6372\ Puget Sound LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN -NAM. MILLER ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL15210B4PAT2T2CG-01 I ♦ I UNINCORPORATED •j KING , COUNTY / / BEGIN • PROJECT \ -A--1_ CITY OF FortDont 1wN Z RENTON T '` CITY OF \.. 45 \4 ITUKWfLA �� TIly A tL VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ENGINEERING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IPROJECT NAME SW 7TH ST LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A II figArinfrbou / I C o , `i "^ J n'ty De epment 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION COVER SHEET I I DRAWING NO. 1 OF 57 ACP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PC POINT OF CURVE BOC BACK OF CURB PT POINT OF TANGENT BOW BACK OF SIDEWALK P/L PROPERTY UNE BP BEGIN PROFILE PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE BVCE BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATION PUD PUBUC UTILTIY DISTRICT BVCS BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE STATION PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION CB CATCH BASIN R RADIUS C&G CURB AND GUTTER RT RIGHT C/L CENTERUNE ROW or R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY CONC CONCRETE SD STORM DRAIN CONST CONSTRUCTION SDMH STORMWATER MANHOLE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SS SANITARY SEWER COR CITY OF RENTON STA STATION CP CONCRETE PIPE TDA THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA CSTC CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TEL TELEPHONE DIA DIAMETER TESC TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DI, DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE TYP TYPICAL E EAST, EASTING VC VERTICAL CURVE EOA EDGE OF ASPHALT VERT VERTICAL EOG EDGE OF GRAVEL W WATER EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT WS WATER SERVICE EP END PROFILE WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EVCE END VERTICAL CURB ELEVATION EVCS END VERTICAL CURB STATION EX, EXIST EXISTING FOC FACE OF CURB FL FLANGE, FLOWUNE G GAS GB GRADE BREAK HMA HOT MIX ASPHALT HORIZ HORIZONTAL ID INDENTIFICATION IE INVERT ELEVATION KC KING COUNTY LF LINEAR FEET LP LOW POINT LT LEFT ME MATCH EXISTING MIN MINIMUM MON MONUMENT N NORTH, NORTHING N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT NO. NUMBER NST NOT STEEPER THAN OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK REVSIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED 0. KIKUTA 1 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2C-002 03 JOB No. 554-1521-084 (A/2C) INDEX TO DRAWINGS DWG NO. SHT NO. SHEET TITLE GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 COVER SHEET ABBREVIATIONS AND SHEET LIST LEGEND SURVEY CONTROL PLAN SURVEY CONTROL PLAN A-UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL C-UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL B-LINE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL SITE PREPARATION 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 TESC1 TESC2 TESC3 TESC4 TESCS TESC6 TESC7 TESC8 TESC9 CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN CLEARING, GRADING AND TESC PLAN TYPICAL SECTIONS 18 CS1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS PLAN & PROFILE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Cl C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE INTERSECTION PLAN PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE SIGN SCHEDULE AND GRADING DETAIL GRADING PLAN STORM DRAINAGE 35 SD1 CULVERT DETAILS WALL PROFILES 36 WP1 GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PROFILES DETAILS 37 38 39 40 D1 D2 D3 D4 DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS SIGNALIZATION 41 42 43 44 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 SIGNAL PLAN SIGNAL WIRING DIAGRAM SIGNAL POLE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS SIGNAL DETAILS STRUCTURAL 45 46 47 48 SI S2 S3 S4 BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION BRIDGE FOUNDATION LAYOUT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PIERS 1 AND 2 BARUST MITIGATION 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Y MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MP6 MP7 MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS MITIGATION NOTES TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 56 57 TC1 TC2 SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL Parametrix 411 t OBTN AVENUE N E, SUITE MD BELLEVUE WASIINGTON.004 T 05458%SO F 4254MCM GINEERWG . PUNNING. ENNRONNENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ABBREVIATIONS AND SHEET LIST DESCRIPTION LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION PROPOSED FXISTING ROW LINE R/W SPLIT RAIL FENCE U�� NE —a o n— r'---- -"- RAILROAD C/L RAILROAD C/L BARBWIRE FENCE UNE - -. z -- _x_...— -.- PROPERTY UNE ------ PA------ CHAIN UNK FENCE UNE -•0 o — CRY BOUNDARY UNE • • • • • • • • HOG WIRE FENCE UNE EASEMENT UNE WOOD GUARDRAIL u u u u u u u u u u u � u FOUND MONUMENTS ® ® GUY ANCHOR REBAR & CAP 0 POWER POLE WITH LIGHT HUB & TACK FLOOD UGHf"=- \ / PK NAIL /W\ UTILITY POLE {- PROPERTY CORNER • PP W/ UG DROP 4 STREAM BUFFER BBBB-- PP W/ UG DROP & XMFR STREAM OVERHEAD POWER --. _. . _.. OP . EDGE OF WATER POWER __-... _ ..._.... -p-. WETLAND FLAG POWER VAULT I P I ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OHWII � POWER TRANSFORMER t4l 100-YEAR FL00DPWN BOUNDARY POWER MANHOLE SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION POWER HANDHOLE B DITCH UNE -- - -- - - -- POWER CABINET PAR CAD STORM DRAIN UNE SD POWER RISER PR CULVERT ) POWER METER fl QUARRY SPALL SOLID LID J-BOX f,IT CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 2 O LC� LUMINAIRE 4-)1({� 0 INLET PROTECTION TELEPHONE VAULT I j SANITARY SEWER UNE SS TELEPHONE RISER El SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE O © 0 TELEPHONE MANHOLE LJ SANITARY SEWER VAULT TELEPHONE T CLEANOUT (0) 9 TV RISER G CONTOURS MAJOR 10 TV TV CONTOURS MINOR 2 2 FIBER OPTIC FO FILTER FABRIC FENCE-O—D—O—O—O- GAS VALVE CA HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE N X X GAS O CLEARING AND GRUBBING UNITS cc oa—a cc— WATER UNE V FILL UNE F F F FIRE HYDRANT b7 CUT UNE c c D c- WATER METER E WATER VALVE TEST PR OR BORE HOLE TP OR BH rf SAWCUT UNE / ASPHALT EDGE /i .ut _ _ WATER BLOW OFF VALVE D CONCRETE UNE _ WATER POST INDICATOR 9 SPRINKLER HEAD ROT=90 /'‹ CURB AND GUTTER UNE -- - - ' 61 EDGE OF PATCH --- -- _... _.__ EDGE OF GRAVEL -----_----_---.... JURISDICTIONAL DITCH -- - - - -- - LEGEND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED 11111111 ROCKERY CONCRETE BARRIER zz J. "Y:1_ REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2C-G02„ 03 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE W/ LAMP TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE TRAFFIC CONTROL LOOP (SQ) TRAFFIC CONTROL CABINET PEDESTRIAN POLE MONITORING WELL SURFACE POST SIGN SKIP LANE UNE SOUD LANE UNE FOG UNE LEFT ARROW STRAIGHT ARROW RIGHT ARROW MAILBOX TREES WETLAND SYMBOL WETLAND BOUNDARY VEGETATION RETAINING WALL RIP RAP ROCKERY HANDICAPPED SYMBOL WHEELCHAIR RAMP BUILDING UNE CONCRETE STAIR UNE WOOD STAIRWAY ASPHALT PATH CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ENGINEERED SOIL MIX LANDSCAPE AREA RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING RESTORATION PLANTING AREA I, C.�". "; I ••y Gare;c,pme-t EXISTING 9- O ❑ Ty m r— c�S3 ELL MED 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix .11 I WIN AVG..IE N E_ SUTE ISM ENGINEERING . PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A LEGEND DRAWING NO. 3 OF 57 BEGIN PROJECT STA 1+00.00 A -LINE N. 2+00 ALINE DI -41 n % \ _ -- -777 .7!--...--' =•----______:- - - - - - - - - - -77, I-_-_,.. _ __ _ _ _ _ Ill( N=177351.98 i11 E=1291743.33 ELV=22,73 �SET REBAR NO CAP KC PNICEL No. 722950a360 ANC COMTE TRACT 36 IENION AIOfE.l)N05 4+00 KC PARCEL Na 2323049001 CTT CR TIMITA NE 23-23-04 CITY OF TUKWILA SE 14-23-04 NC PARCEL Na 77296.1FO 1445E KC PARCEL No. 232W19005 I94SF BEGIN CLINE STA 201+00.00 KCP 0.6.alANO wN. ca ■ KC PNDEL N0. 72295003ID 8+00 law. PPI NAY. co. 1 I 1 1 KC PARCEL NO. 377920011E COY 07 RENION KC PARCEL NO. 1323049020 arsF - KC rwrcQ ` ANKTEM /KC6 01No. 147701900E a'R. RR AND NW. CO. LIME - UP'RA %\ 11 N=176125.66 E-1290276.61 ELV=27.80 FOUND 1--' BRASS DISK W/ PUNCH 0.5' DOWN CITY OF RENTON NW 24-23-04 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN K. BRAATEN CHECKED 0. KIKUTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-GO G05 JO8554-1521-084 (A/2C) SW 13-23-04 KC PARCEL NO. 3779200117 CITY OF WON / KG FIRM S9.1323049009 CRY OF IUKRKA / N=176607.11 E=1290388.76 ELV=35.01 FOUND ION IN CASE 002 N=176477.49 E=1290501.99 ELV=34.95 LDRTK BEGIN BANE 100+00 STA 99+94.19 KC PNK . N0. 1 -- �� - SW 13-23-04 KC FAWN No. 7229500310 MG COUNTY PER TIRE REPOIR KC PARCEL NO. 1323049012 COY OF REN1CN END A -LINE 902o STA 17+76. 45 OTT OF �.` KC PIALEL Na 3779200119 CITE OF FUROR -72362 N=176395.57 E=1290884.66 ELV=26.59 SET NAIL s- 4/4f\ \ END C-LINE STA 206+50.00 SCALE IN FEET 0 100' 200' / /AV �V a i-.'1100 - SE 13-23-04 SCALE IN FEET 0 100' 200' KC PNiEL Na 3779200112 CRY OF PINION i 10 I m -- U1 sr = 11/1 j +,--27 ' • 1111 Z 9015 t J N=177033.12 {_ 6+1291310.30 1110 ELV=30.68 . 11- SET REBAR NO CAP / 1� / 1 / / `✓/ Parametrix 11 BELLEVUE TN IVAMINGTO, SUE teOD T. QS.SB.BNO F 05 558 Stq ENGINEERING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I I SURVEY NOTES: 1. HORIZONTAL DATUM, BASIS OF MERIDIAN: GRID NORTH, WASHINGTON COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD83(91) HELD CITY OF RENTON MONUMENTS: HORIZONTAL AND STATIONS 1333 AND 1854 2. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 HELD CITY OF RENTON BENCHMARKS: BM#1333 AND BM#1854 3. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS CONDITIONS AND FEATURES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THIS TOPOGRAPHY IN OCTOBER, 2010. 4. CONVENTIONAL AND GPS SURVEY EQUIPMENT WAS USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SURVEY. ALL EQUIPMENT IS MAINTAINED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT STATE STATUTE. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONTROL PLAN DRAWING NO. 4 OF 57 G4 STA 6t52. 11.0'LT 1 OHWM _---t-I N IKc MRCEL NO. 722950036D CITY OF TUKWIU OPE TACT 36 RENf0N SII7603 — I �a =cc=ar G2, CO • 1 L BEGIN PROJECT BP,STAy1+00 BLACK' RIVER 1KC PARCEL NO. 727.7.00,60 KING COUNY ;INC 37 REN ON SNOREIANDS :`GREEN RIVER TRAIL • 1 Z D -E----.r_6 --,tit -./;--0 \ I P� _---- OVERHEAD WATERUNE \'I KC PARCEL NO. 7229500350 0 .J1 z ccr Tom, 10 I � 21=�w c) QI 100-YEARFLOODPLAI NL,\T! 15 4 _ \ a\ T \\ \I- j E.\�y / 1 ..°=',/ ' ' KC FARCE ` �KWK.- I k. _ _ - ,--- 1,---, 1 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2DM-1 11 _A — •• \'x • ' , 3 c=r FORT DENT PARK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 •• • • • • • N �SSEMENP #720302 IDEj/RAINA p 1 7 s[6-6 Z KC PARCEL N0. 72295i60320 cc, 1 w A IAHCO 1 KC PARCEL Na 7229500340 1 I OM. RR 1 AND AV. CO. 1 -4-- 1- —i OHWm i -___...,, 8+00 1 I ``=� �ol 1 aI r Ci / w / KC PARCEL ND. 232L9003 1 LL 0/ 111 0.WEEI my. 11 1 i Al 1 PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 KC PARCEL NO. 7229500330 O.W. RR N70 NW. CO. LESSEE - UPRR BL ACK RIVER KC 06600. NO.7229511D360 % / B,.�� BAG cover '`�+'i ' 1 TRACT 36 mom SAOREIANDS-- 1 Io /KC NCB. NO. 7229500360 IU) OTT OF TUKWIA + KNEW./' TRACT 36 KNEW SNORED/41S in N 1rui _p0—i l Z - I. Ate. • A 1 I V 421 DITCH < (.} KC PARCEL N0. 2323049001 M"RA � va; • w�„ Parametrix �It ICSTN AVENUE N E. SUITE I601, 1 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL ENGINEERING. PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES SEGMENT A 1 D i d--cxi— Z I J I -- 1� - Co'rrr.urity Deve:opment DEMOLITION NOTES: MAINTAIN EXI511NG MtIAL. GAIt. ® REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKING. OREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. ® INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. OREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. OREMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO Kfl 12 FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 14 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO SECTION 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL AlEk 16 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE AND REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 17 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: ®INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ®INSTALL HIGH VISIBIUTY FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-10.10-01. OINSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. ®INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. ®INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18- BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS UNIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL IS UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. REFER TO DETAIL H ON SHEET CS1 FOR SCARIFICATION DETAILS. LEGEND: / / / ! / SAWCUT CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL —11— HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE OR HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE, SEE PLANS. —o—o— SILT FENCE ® INLET PROTECTION RIP RAP REMOVAL 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME CLEARING, GRADING AND DRAWING NO. 9 OF 57 PAIR u: \P50\Pro}nols\plants\1521—KIngCo\554-1521-084 L25 03:1,TYP SEE NOTE 1 FOR SECTION A WALL /4 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS 16' Li_."(2) 025- A-LINE STA 1+00 TO 10+36 A -LINE STA 11+25 TO 15+38 B-LINE STA 104+60 TO 106+15 B-LINE STA 125+45 TO 126+75 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE TYP 6 SEE NOTE 2 FOR SECTION A 1;f EXISTING GROUND SECTION A NOTES- 1. 0.5% FROM A-UNE STA 4+34 LT TO STA 4+82 LT. 2. 2:1 FROM A-UNE STA 11+50 RT TO STA 13+00 RT. 3. B-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 104+00 TO SECTION A AT STA 104+60. 4. B-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 106+15 TO SECTION C AT STA 106+75. 5. B-UNE TRANSMONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 124+85 TO SECTION A AT STA 125+45. 6. B-UNE TWVSRIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 126+75 TO SECTION C STA 127+35. EXISTING GROUND TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER WALL j1 EXISTING GROUND RLSIURED WITH NATIVE SOILS TOP OF - ROADWAY WALL /5 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED O. KIKUTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CCS-01 JOB No. 554-1521-084 (A/2C) 16' 2' 6' 6' 2' S`11' PAVED TRNL -.2% MAX IGRADE PAVED TRAIL PROFILE S LDR A-LNE STA 10+36 TO 11+25 A -LINE STA 15+96 TO 16+28 TYPICAL SECTION n NO SCALE 8.5' 5' —i 4 1 VARES 4"-6" 2JG MAX. VARIES EXISTING BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB CLINE STA 201+19 TO 201+26 TYPICAL SECTION reN NO SCALE 1.5' CLINE STA 201+43 TO 203+58 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 6" RED BRICK RUNNING BOND STAMPED CONCRETE. TYP GRADE TO DRAIN 11 4" 11 10- RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND AT MONSTER ROAD TYPICAL SECTION n NO SCALE - 2" IOCDEPTH VARIES 3:1, TYP (STING GROUND EXISTING GROUND 0 WALL /2 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS 3:1, TYP 16' 2' 6' 6' 2' S I- II,. PAVED TRAIL PROFILE GRADE PAVED TRAIL 2% MAX'_ S LDR 0 2 4. B-LINE STA 101+23 TO 104+00" B-LINE STA 106+75 TO 124+85 B-LINE STA 127+35 TO 143+18 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 13z TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND EXISTING BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER GROUND GRADE TO DRAIN APPROACH SLABS n BRIDGE EXPANSION JOINT 2-INCH PARTIAL DEPTH CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE * SEE NOTES 3, 4, 5, AND 6 FOR SECTION A SEE DETAILED GRADING AT SHEET C15 WALL 13A AND WALL #36 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS VARIES 1' TYP TO 2'-6" AT WALL APPROACHES TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE — CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK, VARIES 2"-6". FLUSH WITH ADJOINING DRIVEWAY — 2-INCH DEPTH PARTIAL CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY 2 EXISTING BRIDGE 13-INCH J 0. SECTION V a MONSTER R • . SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY - DETAIL NO SCALE - EXISTTNG GROUND -1 CEMENT CONC. SIDEIVAUC CONSTRUCTION NOTES: HMA CL 3/8" PG 64-22. CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE. SELECT BORROW INCL HAUL CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-30.10-03. HMA CL 1/2" PG 64-22. 4" TOPSOIL TYPE A AND SEEDING AND FERTIUZING BY HAND. GRAVITY BLOCK WALL OFFSET AS NOTED IN CROSS-SECTION. SEE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON SHEET WP1. CEMENT CONC TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-10.12-03. 4' HIGH COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE TYPE 6 WITH TOP RAIL PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PUNNING. ENVRONIENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A DRAWING NO. 18 OF 57 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS CS1 PLOTTED BY: mlllemal DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:47: BEGIN PROJECT BP,,STA 1t00 - • tea GREEN RIVER TRAIL F- -F '9. F-(—moo i F • FORT DENT PARK 1\ \_ -i� • \ \ O EASEMENT #7203020421 �\ 150' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH Q �\1 PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 F F F----T t OHW `I 1 STA 4+34, 8.0'LT BEGIN.iO.5% CUT SLOPE (LEFT SIDE ONLY) STA 1+00 TO S1TA 10+36. KC PARCEL N0. 232.3049001 BLACK RIVER 1WC1 36 RENTON SIDRE0AN05^.,7N i /i STA 4+82, 8.0'LT _ END/I�0.5% CUT SLOPE SIDE ONLY) ,' I /' PARCEL NO. 727rcm360 I1— CRT CF ILKCA W IW ,/• co,J - -- W � U) l KC PARCEL NO. 7229500360 MC COUNTY TRACE 36 RENICK SII3RELVDS 4 0 40 35 30 25 20 15 N M N I 100' VC yM 35 25 20 15 10 O N PVI STA 4+60.00 EL=22.84' K=54.18 8 II PVI STA 1+00.00 EL=23., 7 FINISHED GRADE� 7-0o a c2 40 i d - 1 —0.09X----- -1.94X IXISTING� GROUND -' -- _______ - - - r M N N N n N N W W ,, z 4 N N n rn N N N N O rn N N Of VS • N Lc) O N �� � � �I N M N NS N M ,N N N O N pD 0 M N N N ND 0 M N N N M 0 M N o N M N. N rn N N ^ N N d rn N N N N N rn N N 1 tF) aD NI • N N. CV N N N N N N d a CV N N t0 o O N N N 1 +0 0 2+00 0 REVISIONS 041E BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN rurM.r MILLER ONE INCH ACALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-C1 3+00 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' 4+00 ENGINEENING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES r5+00-• . - +so Cr IPROJECT NAME LAKE STO SOUND GME T A TRAIL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 7 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-23.60-03. 08 GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. OINSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-03 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 11 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1 AND 3, SHEET D1. 0 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2 AND 3, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 18 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 17 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 0 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. 0 INSTALL SOUD WALL PVC CULV. PIPE, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 21 COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS, PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SEE CS AND WP SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 23 24 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D2. INSTALL SPUR RAIL FENCE PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D4. INSTALL 4"X4-X7' PRESSURE TREATED POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION. SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET D2. SEE SIGN SCHEDULE ON SHEET C15. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D3 FOR ROOT PRUNING AND ROOT BARRIER PLACEMENT ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE u DRAW9NC NO. 19 OF 57 BLACK RIVER KC PARCEL NO. 7229500760 L_____- acr n RENRRI SNOW/AIDS _____ MG MOT 1 OHWM SHORDAVS U KC PARCEL ND. 7229503340 TRACT 36 RENMOI =I P V- I F Cr) - W U) ZI ��-- J° 1-I`Ftf.„4:4- 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 �-F F STA : 53, 9.0'RT GI STA 6+64, 9.0 BEGIN I BEGIN e KC PARCEL ND. 7 E9S STA�- �6+, 64. Zo 6• KC PARCEL N0. o� OVERHEAD WATERUNE ` T 7R- -r 1 - 0- EXISTING OVERPASSES U CAE Og�00 Z - Q o 0 a >- ? w tn I-KCRasa NO. 77L950D31D U F- U memo0-O al 6 A RR ND. 7229500340 I KC PARCEL AN NW. C0330 O. O.TrI RR ' - NW. CO.00. I O.R. PR AND NW. CO. I Mil' - INIW LESSEE - UPRR OHWM O--Z O Z U � ELEVATIONS NOT CONFIRMED 1n -STA 8+31, 9.0'L7 END e STA 8+31; 9.O RT I END, 15 1\ :km \ C, ' KC PARCEL NO. 2323049003 D.N. RR NO INV. CO. I Ec6T - UPRR _ STA 8+73, 9.0' END ()TYPE 1 \� F No. Q2NH900B O.W. W WINV-00` 1'-EE55EE - UPM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. O BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-23.60-03. OGUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. O INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-03 AND C-1B. O NOT USED O INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD . 1 V 11 PER DETAIL 1 AND 3, SHEET D1. ` O INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER PA 12 IDETAIL 2 AND 3, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. IN 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND 111 PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. W 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER N SHEET D3. W 16 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 - PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 = WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. rr att - - --- - + ao— 1001 VC O 100 VC PV1 STA EL-1p.65' K=92.63 6+25.00 PA STA Et-16.44' 0+00.00 -a vi + K=19.82 XEv a01 U Tim 8 + ---- __________ �----- - --f- -- -0.86X -- - - -}}E f FINISHED GRADE 6 -------- 1 ------ -- ___________ 1---- -- _O. ... FO IXISfING GROUN 6\___ 2-12- SD ._ c, oN �aO 1 9 N M01 . o N _-_-__.______.. r °' '- , o N cr' r Di O O'loi NiN °plDi -i^ 06cr, I p �n aCi 1.._ —_ O co �Il� __. _._L._— O ou .....^ 3 m ... aD �In 1^ rn US ^ •a US ,jD ^ a m ^ iD c0�� ao -ICD tDipp �I � mil - r �, ,D. - 5+50 6+00 7+00 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED 0. KIKUTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-C1 JO8554-1521-084 (A/2C) 8+00 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' 9+00 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 10+00 17 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 18 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. 1 g INSTALL SOUD WALL PVC CULV. PIPE, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS, PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SEE CS AND WP SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D2. 23 INSTALL SPLIT RAIL FENCE PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D4. 24 INSTALL 4"X4"X7' PRESSURE TREATED POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION. SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D3 FOR ROOT PRUNING AND ROOT BARRIER PLACEMENT ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENNRONIENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A DRAWING NO. 20 OF 57 PLAN AND PROFILE C2 SIGN SCHEDULE SIGN NO. PROPOSED LOCATION STA OFF DESCRIPTION MUTCD SIGN SIZE POST SIZE/TYPE REMARKS - SEE NOTE 4 1 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 2 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 3 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 4 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 5 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 6 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 7 SEE SHEET TS1 ARROW W16-7P 24"X12" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3 8 SEE SHEET TS1 ARROW W16-7P 24"X12" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3 9 B 142+97 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A N/A N/A PROTECT IN PLACE 10 B 143+15 NO DUMPING N/A N/A 4"X4" / WOOD EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. 11 B 143+15 NO STOPPING OR STANDING N/A N/A N/A REMOVE AND DISPOSE 12 A 1+30 SPEED LIMIT R2-1 24"X24" 4"X4' / WOOD 13 A 15+20 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24'X24' 4"X4' / WOOD 14 A 16+10 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4' / WOOD 15 B 142+90 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4-X4" / WOOD 16 B 142+90 SPEED LIMIT R2-1 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD NOTES: 1. MOUNT ON MAST ARM, PER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD PLAN G011. 2. MOUNT ON SIGNAL OR LIGHT STANDARD, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN G-30.10-01. 3. FLUORESCENT YELLOW -GREEN BACKGROUND. 4. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE IN THE REMARKS. 5. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR SIGN LOCATIONS. A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN POINT ELEVATION STATION OFFSET NORTHING EASTING 200 29.37 B 102+43 6.0' LT 176555.06 1290767.16 201 29.37 B 102+49 6.4' LT 176542.07 1290767.53 202 29.96 A 17+41 6.0' LT 176527.75 1290770.97 203 29.96 A 17+41 0' 176529.16 1290776.83 204 29.96 A 17+41 6.0' RT 176530.32 1290782.72 205 29.37 A 17+54 6.0' RT 176540.86 1290783.02 206 29.06 A 17+64 6.0' RT 176548.10 1290786.21 207 28.70 B 102+65 6.0' RT 176554.94 1290793.02 208 28.82 B 102+65 0' 176559.88 1290789.61 209 28.94 B 102+65 6.0' LT 176564.87 1290786.28 210 29.21 B 102+54 6.0' LT 176559.27 1290776.72 211 29.15 A 17+64 0.8' LT 176551.85 1290780.50 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN r.cM..cMILLER I I ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FLE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-C1 1o2+OO---B-LINE---- A-LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN DETAIL Parametrix .111%THAWMENE SUTE1,m IGN PER PANS AND SPECS. 4x4 PRESSURE TREATED FIR POST. INSTALL W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKFlLL PROVIDE 4' COMMERCIAL CONCRETE CAP WHEN INSTALLED IN ASPHALT SURFACE. POST -MOUNTED SIGNAGE NOTE: 1. USE 7' MOUNTING HEIGHT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNS. NOTE: 1. STAKE SIGN LOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL 2. SEE THIS SHEET FOR SIGN SCHEDULE. SIGNAGE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 21 w W w w w W w yr v.• v yc w K BAR E"N I � NGINFFGEC - PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME 24 ------------ LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A -2% 103+00 - - - - - -• Co..,-wirrty Development 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGN SCHEDULE AND DRAWING NO. 330E 57 /-�CAI'111L11� 11CTA11 4"4 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL C: \PMX\"unp\AcPUDibh_6372\ 70 0 NOTES: INSTALL 3' MA. RED REFLECTIVE BUTTONS USING SCREWS AND BOLTS ON AU. FOUR SIDES OF BOLLARD. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 3/16• X 3" X 1' STEEL SHIMS WELDED TO 5• X 5' TUBE 8 LOCATIONS, TYP 5" x 5" X 1/4" A-96 STEEL SQUARE TUBE 1. PADLOCK SHALL BE MASTER KEYED ALIKE TOSM-737 WITH NO. 5LF SHACKLE, OWNER PROVIDED. 2. SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE FOOTING TO DRAIN AWAY FROM POST. 3. HOT DIP GALV. & PRIME PAINT - FINISH COLOR TO BE WHITE MARINE ENAMEL 1 1/2' 1 1/4' III=III= REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAIL NOT TO SCALE �BROOM BRUSH FlNISH N PLAN 3/16' SIL8L PLATE. CUT TO CONFORM TO TUBE WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH. 4' X 4" X 3/16• (AS1M) A-36 SILLL SQUARE TUBE INSTALLATION SHALL BE PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER /773 OR EQUAL 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM PERFORMANCE PAINT OR EQUAL WHITE. PAINT FULL LENGTH PRIOR TO PLACEMENT (2) 3/8" STEEL PLATE WITH 3/4' RADIUS. WELD TO TUBES. DRILL 5/B" DA HOLES. PLATES TO BE WITHIN 1/8' TO 1/2" OF EACH OTHER WHEN BOLLARD IS INSTALLED FINISHED GRADE TRAIL TYP 3/16• STEEL PLATE. 1-1/2" WIDE. WELDED ACROSS END OF TUBE COMMERCIAL CONCRETE NO. 5 GRADE 60 REBAR, 4 PLACES. WELD TO 5"x 5" TUBE 2) 1" DIA DRAIN HOLES CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE BROOM BRUSH FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO TRAIL TRAFFIC FLUSH WITH HMA TRAIL SURFACING CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE COMPACTED SUBGRADE I111I�II11I�Ii CONCRETE WARNING BAND DETAIL NOT TO SCAIF 6x6x10 WELDED WIRE MESH REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED 0. HO UTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FAX NAME 8L1521084PA72T2DT-1 JOB B554-1521-084 (A/2C) -1 I I-1 I I-1 SECTION 45 CHAMFER ER INSTALL 3' DAL RED REFLECTIVE BUTTONS USING SCREWS AND BOLTS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF 80LLARD. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 8"X8•R000HSAWN PRESSURE TREATED WOOD POST, SET PLUMB FINISHED GRADE� ASPHALT TRAIL TYP COMMERCIAL CONCRETE UNDISTURBED SUB -GRADE - III -I =III—il -III-III- 111EI I I -I 11, -III-III 11 III 1III -I �d 2' CWUIFER SLOPE CONCRETE FOR DRAINAGE MIN 1% SLOPE MAX 1D N 1-I -III—III111- -1�II�III(111T ;I I' FIXED BOLLARD DETAIL -11II IIIII NOT TO SCALE CEMENT CONCRETE CLASS 4000 n ASPHALT TRAIL TYP 4' WIDE SOLID YELLOW PAINTED LINE GRAVEL EDGE TRW_ EDGE FIXED BOLLARD, TYP REMOVABLE CENTER BOLLARD FIXED BOLLARD, TYP TRAIL EDGE 0. 10 GRAVEL EDGE BOLLARD PLAN LOCATION DETAIL n NOT TO SCALE 0 BOLLARD STRIPING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE n 3.-0" REMOVABLE e BOLLARD 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix 110801 AVENUE N E. SUITE 800 BELLEVlE. LaA$RNGTGN 58008 T 425458820 F. 435458 ENO ENGINEORNG. OLANNWG. ENVIROMPENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A DETAILS DRAWING NO. 37 OF 57 D1 2016 10:57:40 AM 1 2' 1' (2) BENCHES PLAN TRAIL ASPHALT EDGE (1) TRASH RECEPTACLE PER SPECIAL PROVISION SECTION 8-30 FINISHED \o GRADE 3 w I=1 I=1 I=i II—= 6l ly1 TYPE 1 REST STOP DETAIL NOT TO SCALE „FU ,`t -009 STA 1+65, 16.0'LT f STA 1+20, 10.9'LT 1 I I I � r1111 11 1E1-1 1II 411E11EL BENCH PER SPECIAL PROVISION SECTION 8-30. STAKE LOCATION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS 3- SO. SILU. TUBE PER MFR 4' DEPTH CONCRETE PAD W/ 6x6x10 WWM CENTERED IN SLAB. PITCH 0 27. TO DRAIN< EXPAND DEPTH AT SURFACE PLATE 4" DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACE TOP COURSE CONLN .I1 FOOTING. (2) PER BENCH COMPACT SUBGRADE, TYP. SEE SPECS. INSTALL HIGH VISIBILI1Y FENCE AFTER REMOVAL OF RIP RAP. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE DURING SHEET PILE WALL INSTALLATION. / )( EXISTING GROUND WITH VARIOUS SIZED RIP RAP AND VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED SANDBAGS OR GEOTEXTILE ENCASED QUARRY SPALLS. FOR SAND BAGS, STAGGER PLACEMENT TO PROVIDE OVERLAP OF JOINTS. FOR GEOTEXTILE, OVERLAP FABRIC 1' MIN. FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STD SPECIFICATION 9-33, TABLE 6. QUARRY SPALLS SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STD SPECIFICATION 9-13.6. CHECK DAM MUST BE IN PLACE DURING REMOVAL OF RIP RAP AND VEGETATION. SANDBAG OR QUARRY SPALL CHECK DAM DETAIL NOT TO SCALE _..� SEE DETAIL ON _ SHEET CS1 STA 2+21 _ 4'77 ( EP, PT STA 1+70, 23 B'LT / \� N: 176368 E: 1290729.64 \ . STA 1+00 BP, PC N: 176307.33 E: 1290631.52 • DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT STA 1+31, 11.0'RT DRIVEWAY PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH A T FU SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 811521084PAT2T20T-1 DRIVEWAY DETAIL 40' 30' 20' ECTIO o rn N rn ± 4- a,', + IT1 EL=31.521 PVI STA 19-94.78 EL=30.91 PVI STA 2+10.72 EL- 30.76 • M A ' 47J,`, =1 07% � =74 �7: _ - = 0% 11(ISTING I BACK OF DRIVEWAYi WALK FLOW LINE �n N,, to t7 �N 1'7 ODD M 1+00 ENGINEERING . PLANNIN:.ENVRONMENTAL SCENCES DRIVEWAY PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' I I PRO.ECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A 2+00 4x4 PRESSURE TREATED FIR POST. INSTALL W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKFILL PROVIDE 4' COMMERCIAL CONCRETE CAP WHEN INSTALLED IN ASPHALT SURFACE 3' 1YP. N -III .i y- I1=1 T=111=111- 40' 30' 20' 2+21 Cc" rur'ty Devo'.,:prnert 4'-0' FROM EDGE OF TRAIL 2'-0' FROM EDGE OF SHOULDER 0 —1 I I I I �I I ASP 111-1 I I. 111-11 - HALT TRAIL POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I I DRAWING NO. 38 OF 57 LEGEND: END RAIL 13' SCH 40 -- TOP RAIL orSCH 40 0 END POST 2%' SCH 40 1'-0' FENCE CANOPY PLAN NO SCALE UMITS OF FENCE FABRIC 6' HIGH TYPE 1 COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 ATTACHED TO SOUTH SIDE OF CANOPY FOR ENTIRE LENGTH OF CANOPY. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ADINTIONAL FENCE LENGTH BEYOND CANOPY. GRAVEL 12'-0' TOP RNL (TYP) 2'-0' GRAVEL END RAIL (TYP) UNE/END POSE NO FENCE FABRIC ON NORTH SIDE OR ENDS OF CANOPY CLEARANCE 0 UNE POST lib' SCH 40 1%' FENCE MESH, BLACK VINYL COATED TO 9 GAUGE F1NSH NOTES: 1. ALL POSTS, RAILS AND FABRIC SHALL BE POWDER -COATED BLACK. 2. SEE WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 FOR ATTACHMENT OF FENCE FABRIC TO POSTS. 10' IN SHOULDER PAVED TRAIL CONCRETE POST BASE (END POST ONLY) FENCE CANOPY SECTION SHOULDER CLEARANCE EXISTING GROUND i nw 10' MIN 2GRAVEL SHOULDER EXISTING] GRADE ROOT BARRIER DETAIL NO SCALE - NO SCALE A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN K. BRAATEN CHECKED 9. 161X UTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 8L1521084PAT2T20T-1 JOB55od-1571-fR4 (A/7n ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES i ADDRIONAL DEUMBING AND PRUNING OF TREES AND SHRUBS WILL APPLY TO THIS AREA. SEE SECTION 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. PAVED TRAIL SURFACE ROOT BARRIER, ANGLED TO DEFLECT NEW ROOT CRONTH. INSTALL LENGTH OF MATURE TREE DIAMETER PLUS 5 FEET. ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE UMITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ROOT PRUNING ZONE, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 39 OF 57 SEGMENT A DETAILS n� BLOCK WALL UNIT 18•H X 46"W X 41 •D (TEXTURED EXTERIOR FACE) v� w � 3w 3y SEE WALL PROFILES FOR EMBEDMENT - 6 IN. 45' BEND 4' MIN SEE SHEET CS1 FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WALL OFFSETS COATED CHAIN UN( FENCE OR BLOCK, AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS. UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT SEE DETAIL 2 OMIT OF STRUCTURE GEOTEXTILE FOR EXCAVATION CI ASS A UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE INCL HAUL DRAINAGE INF1LL GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIA WRAPPED IN CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SLOPE TO DRAIN. 18• 6• LEVELING PAD (CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE) GRAVITY BLOCK WALL DETAIL 1 •=2' 1im -•-mac I_I_I_I_I:1�I=1_•i.i;- _I f CLEANOUTS SHALL BE LOCATED IN GRAVEL SURFACE AREAS AND BE EQUIPPED WITH A UTILITY BOX AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. FINISHED GRADE CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE. 6 IN. WYE UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DAM. INSTALL UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUTS AT ENDS OF WALLS, BENDS, AND MAX 100' SPACING. UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT DETAIL 1 "=2' BACKF1LL FOR GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PREMOLDED JOINT FLLER 3 0 EXPANSION JOINT A REVISIONS DATE 1BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE PNAM 1 ADA 0 A T717111.-1 ecs' Qom. 1. EXPANSION .JOINT ALONG DRIVEWAY CENTERLINE. 15. MAXIMUM SPACING WHEN DRIVEWAY WIDTHS EXCEED 30'. SPACING 2. PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PATTERNED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SHALL. BE 6• CONCRETE CLASS 4000 AND 4• CRUSHED SURFACE BASE COURSE 6x6x10 WWM SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 4• DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. BROOMED FINISH, PERPENDICULAR TO TRAIL TRAFFIC. 4• WIDE SMOOTH TROWELED PERIMETER FOR EACH 4 x4' SQUARE PATTERN. PAY UNIT FOR PATTERNED CONCRETE I DRIVEWAY o 0 ly I CONTRACTION JOINTS 4' O.C. ADJUST SPAIjING EQUALLY AT ENDIPANEJS ROADO v)D.(l DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIES SEE C SHEETS PLAN TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSSING (AT GRADE) DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Parametrix \ .,. EDGF OF PATTERNED CONCRETE OR BACK OF CURB RAMP 1/8• TO 1/4• °CONTRACTION JOINT ENGINEERING . PUNNING . ENWRONMENTALSGENCES FIRST AND UST POSTS, WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANS EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER COMMERCIAL CONCRETE 10'-0• 10'-0• TAMPED SOIL AT POST BASE, TYP PLAN 6• DIA SPLIT CEDAR POSTS, TYP, 3• - 4• DIA. SPLIT CEDAR RAILS f FINISHED GRADE 12.0 MIN I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A ITILL.. ELEVATION SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL MORTISE NOT TO SCALE a 1.75•, TYP SECTION A 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I DETAILS I I DRAIYNC N0. 40 OF 57 PLOTTED BY: mIlemal DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 PATH: C: \PMX\Tamp\A 0 o0, * '''''' ., 2 FORT DENT PARK REVISIONS X \\ N W DATE BY 0 20 DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED 0. KIKUTA GREEN RIVER J �.__r.�---- p •_,,.r_o s•r SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 BLACK RIVER 0 '7 F.I 0 C OHWM FORT DENT PARK 0 0 \ 2 TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATION FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES DIAMETER'. OF TREE REMOVED (MEASURED AT HEIGHT OF 4.5 FEET FROM THE GROUND) NUMBER OF TREESREQUIREDCEMENT NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED NUMBER OF TREES TO REPLACE ONSTTE 4-6 INCHES (SINGLE TRUNK); 2 INCHES (ANY TRUNK OF A MULTI -TRUNK 1NEE) 3 1 3 OVER 6-8 INCHES 4 2 8 OVER 8-20 INCHES 6 5 30 OVER 20 INCHES 8 2 16 TOTAL 10 57 I I I CC mo a 7+001 1- I W 11 PLAN_______________________________________________ - _________________ -______ SCALE IN FEET 40 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT012000- J09 No. RSA_15'21_0RA (t/9r1 STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 656 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1)PLANTING AREA CLEARING AND GRUBBING. STAKE OR FLAG PROPOSED PLANTING AREA UNITS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STATING CLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA. LEAVE SOIL IN PLACE. SEE SPECIFICATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. O COMPOST. PLACE 3' LAYER COMPOST OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA. WOOD CHIP MULCH. PLACE 3' LAYER WOOD CHIP MULCH. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MPG AND FOR PLANTING DETM S AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PLANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY RIPPING OR TIWNG THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24". 3. PLANTING AREA UNITS AND INTERPIANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WRmIN CLEARING AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING ACTIVITY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METNOOS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPUNE AREA OF EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS. 5. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE, OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY NE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SNALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, OMITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 7. REMOVAL OF IWASPE SPECES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND OR WITH HAND-HELD POWER TOOLS. 8. PLANT DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS OR PRUNING SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WILL ENSURE THAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. 10. SELECTED PLANTINGS WLL MEET THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LEGEND: V/ W ( URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER WEILAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERUNE DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED HABITAT LOG. SEE SHEET MP-6 BRUSHPILE, SEE SHEET MP-6 TILL AREA TO 24' DEPTH PLANTING QUANTITY TAB SHEET ONLY - SYMBOL! GTHIS SYMBOL! TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING NATIVE CONIFER TREES - SPACE 15' 0.C. DOUGLAS FIR 10 N RED CEDAR 14 "� SITI(A SPRUCE 10 NATIVE DECIDUOUS TREES - SPACE 15' 0.C. O -NF MAPLE 14 OREGON ASH 9 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A MITIGATION PLAN DRAWING NO. 49 OF 57 MP1 111 Z — Q W -A-LINE 8+00 CA UJ i (BLACK RIVER ?L - 1 1 rrmftrn �-aI#♦1�w:v1♦1♦1♦♦'�v�11�♦ �..1(�♦♦♦1♦♦11♦1♦♦♦♦♦1m `��lg♦♦♦•♦♦1♦♦♦♦h'113111♦♦1�1♦1♦♦Striti111♦1'!♦♦11,1♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Ar i �a„♦♦11♦♦♦:iji�r♦♦ii♦♦i1i1♦�����♦♦i�♦♦�♦1i♦i♦♦♦♦�i�1�a♦mow♦i•♦k♦�♦� „— - .-:-- — ---,_-__L- -_ 1/4_I tPimitaimt - PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 �� `fin -: w �'.��,.,�'ti��1► - ,-' I -' - =1/►1♦1♦�♦�.;a�— _ _ 448, -;;-♦ ♦♦♦1 ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦�� ♦®ii1♦rC♦1♦♦�1a40 1ijj♦♦"'•♦wwir •+11401414i, A©� ��;lv♦•tr•warty* ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ *** *♦♦♦♦1� 1 4 •♦1 •y =♦ �� ♦1♦11 ♦*4 * �� r,�:�.• 1�,-`•..;a►♦♦i, ****♦♦♦♦♦♦♦'�i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•• �1 y♦�®♦♦� ♦ ♦fir ♦ ♦ 04t27*****#*� "-;04►14*1**♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ 1♦ . +1'�; T ,.�,',l�'. ct�♦1/i ♦ 1♦ 1• `� ♦1♦ ♦♦1♦ 11 ♦1♦ *1♦ �` , Lf / REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY F E N'4n.nn.onrn.nLI ------------- PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT o Parametrix LEGEND: - URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER w w WETLAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERUNE • ^^ ^^ • DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED HABITAT LOG, SEE SHEET MP-6 9RuSHPILE, SEE SHEET MP-8 TILL AREA TO 24" DEPTH • t STRAW WATTLE --- :'` --- - BLACK DIVER'' CONSTRUCTION NOTES: TGA1ION CLEARING AND GRUBBING. ST/JTE DR RAG PROPOSED PLANTING AREA UNITS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STARTING CLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA. LEAVE SOIL IN PLACE SEE SPECIFICATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. OCOMPOST. PLACE 3' LAYER COMPOST OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA. 3 WOOD CHIP MULCH. PLACE 3' LAYER WOOD CHIP MULCH OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MP6 AND FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PLANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY RIPPING OR 11WNC THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24'. 3. PLANTING AREA UNITS AND INTERPLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. AU. PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN CLEARING AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING ACTMIY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPUNE AREA OF DUSTING TREES AND SHRUBS. 5. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE, OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SHUT ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS UMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, UMTTS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 7. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND OR WITH HAND-HELD POWER TOOLS. 8. PLANT DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS OR PRUNING SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. THE PLANING AREAS WILL BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WILL ENSURE THAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. 10. SELECTED PLANTINGS WILL MEET THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. PLANTING QUANTITY TAB - THIS SHEET ONLY - SYMBOLIITEM QUANTITY STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING AREA i SEE SHEET MPS FOR MORE INFORMATION VEGETATION CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA BVC1 21,BVC1 SF TREES - SPACE 12' O.C. VINE MAPLE 17 I MAPLE 9 PAPER BIRCH 9 STTKA SPRUCE 9 DOUGLAS FIR 17 PACIFIC WILLOW 26 SITKA WILLOW 26 ESILRN RED CEDAR 17 SHRUBS - SPACE 4' 0 C. BEAKED HAZELNUT 60 BLACK HAWTHORN 60 OCEANSPRAY 60 INDVN PLUM 119 CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 60 NOOTKA ROSE 1/9 THIMBLEBERRY 179 COMMON SNOWBERRY 1/9 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IPROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A Ge,e:epmer,t MITIGATRIN PI AN DRAWING NO. 50 OF 57 A WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS \10,* I i'l/ ui -I- uI= SACKFUL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS REVISIONS PLANT AT SAME LEVEL AS GROWN. TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE LEVEL WITH FINISH GRADE. FINISHED GRADE I I I '— I EXISTING SOL I I F1I1' I-:_'1� I— _1 1 1— 1111= c11=i11-1111,. lily II1=. 11," ~ PLANTING HOLE TO BE 2 X DIA OF ROOTBALL SHRUB AND SMALL TREE PLANTING DETAIL 12 NO SCALE — mf TREE NOTE' PLANT SHRUBS IN SINGLE SPECIES GROUPS OF 7 TO 12 PLAITS EACH PLANT TREES IN SINGLE SPECES GROUPS OF 1 TO 5 PLANTS EACH. op TYPICAL TREE AND SHRUB SPACING DETAIL n NO SCALE — DAZE BY MIN 10' CLEAR EDGE OF PLANTING AREA DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED ITS TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE' "ENC. HEMLOCK/FIR STAKE, 2" DIA (1 PER TREE) DRNEN INTO UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL MIN 24" DEPTH FINISHED GRADE BACKALL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS SEE PLANT MATERIAL UST FOR SIZE AND TYPE LEAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO BUDS EXPOSED TAMP SOL AROUND CUTTING AMENDED NATIVE SOIL SEE DETAIL NOTE: STAKE ALL TREES 3' AND TALLER. PUNT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS I II�II III PLANTING HOLE TO BE 2 X DIA OF ROOIBLLL CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE — LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION DETAIL ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521064PAT01200C—MP JOB No. n NO SCALE — FINISH GRADE NOTE STAKE ALL TREES 1" CALIPER AND GREATER. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS BACKF1LL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS EXISTING SUBGRADE PLANTING HOLE TO BE 2 X DM OF ROOTBALL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL DETAIL c31 NO SCALE — SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS 8' x 8' BRUSH PILE DETAIL NO SCALE 15' TO25' 12" TO 1 B" DIA. LOGS. STAKE LOCATION OF LOG PLACEMENT WHERE INDICATED IN PLANS. ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS BEFORE LOG PLACEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EXISTING GRADE NOTE: LOGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM IKttb FLAGGED BY HABITAT LOG ENGINEER FROM ONSITE DETAIL ^ WITHIN PROJECT CLEARING„ \ LIMITS. NO SCALE PLANT MATERIAL LIST PLANTING NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE TO DISCUSS UMIIS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNITL ACCESS, OMITS OF WORK. AND METHODS ARE APPROVED. 2. MITIGATION PLANTING PLANS REPRESENT A CONCEPTUAL PLANT LAYOUT. FINAL PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS TO CLEAR AND CULTIVATE SOIL UNDER THE CANOPY (WITHIN AND 5' OUTSIDE THE DRIPUNE) OF DUSTING TREES. 4. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR. PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPUED BY COMMERCIAL NURSERIES THAT SPECINJZE IN PLANTS NATIVE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 5. MITGATION PLANTING SWILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 1ST TO MARCH 1ST). PLANTING MAY BE ALLOWED AT OTHER TIMES AFTER REVEW AND WRITTEN APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF ALL DEBRIS AND EXCESS SOIL OCCASIONED BY THIS PROJECT. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. B. AU. DIMENSIONS FOR USTED HEIGHT. LENGTH AND CONTAINER SIZE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 9. EXISTING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES AND NOT SHOWN TO BE RE —VEGETATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTORED AND SEEDED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLANT ANY NATIVE WOODY VEGETARON DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH SPECIES PROVIDED IN THE PLANT MATERIALS LIST AT 1:1. 10. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH AFFECTED WORK. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING PLANTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION OF PLANTING FOR THE PROJECT. COUNTY WILL MAKE PROVISIONS FOR WATERING AS NEEDED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE ESTABUSHMENT PERIOD AFTER THE FIRST YEAR. QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN SIZE / CONDITION NOTES/ SPACING SEES 67 ACER CIRCINATUM • VINE MAPLE 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B STAKE PROPOSED TREE LOCATIONS IN OPEN INFlLL AREAS WITHIN PLANTING AREAS 106 ACER MACROPHYLLUM • BIGLEAF MAPLE 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 21 BETULA PAYRIFERA • PAPER BIRCH 1" CAL. / CONT. OR B&B 9 FRAXINUS LATIFOLVI • OREGON ASH 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 66 PICEA SITCHENSIS • SITKA SPRUCE 3' HT. / CONT. OR B&B 46 POPULUS BALSAMIFERA * BLACK COTTONWOOD 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 156 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZESII • DOUGLAS FlR 3' HT. / CONT. OR B&B 84 SAUX LUCIDA • PACIFIC WILLOW 1" X 3' LIVE STAKE CUTTING 84 SAUX STTCHENSIS • SIMA WILLOW 1" X 3' LIVE STAKE CUTTING 84 THUJA PUCATA • 3' HT. / CONT. OR B&B WESTERN RED CEDAR MHOS 24B CORYLUS CORNUTA BEAKED HAZELNUT 1 GAL CONT. STAKE PROPOSED SHRUBS IN OPEN !NFU AREAS WITFEN PLANTING AREAS 248 - CRATAEGUS DOUGIASII BLACK HAWTHORN 1 GAL CONT. 336 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY 1 GAL CONT. 511 OEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS INDIAN PLUM 1 GAL CONE. 499 MYRICA CAUFORNICA CAUFORMA WAX MYRTLE 1 GAL CONT. 919 ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 1 GAL CONT. 608 RUBUS PARVIFLORUS THIMBLEBERRY 1 CAL CONT. 905 SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY 1 GAL CONT. NOTE • REPLACEMENT TREES. DECIDUOUS TREES ME 1" CALIPER AND CONIFEROUS TREES AT 3' HEIGHT ARE COUNTED AS EQUIVALENT FOR 1" OF CALIPER REPLACEMENT FOR TREES REMOVED BY PROJECT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVHONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS DRAWING NO. 54 OF 57 05, 2016 11:15:50 AM 1 MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE MITIGATION IS TO REPLACE THE HABFEATS AND FUNCTIONS LOST AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION WOULD ACCOMPLISH THIS BY ENHANCING 0.49 ACRE OF WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE STREAM BUFFER AT MITIGATION SITES 1 AND 2. SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FORMULATED TO ACHIEVE THIS RESULT ARE PRESENTED BELOW. MITIGATION GOAL GOAL ENHANCE 0.49 ACRE OF WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER TO NATIVE FORESTED UPLAND. ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS GOAL IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC MATTER BY PLANTING TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE ENHANCED BUFFER; INCREASE WILDUFE HABITAT; AND IMPROVE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BY PLANTING WITH A VARIETY OF NATIVE RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES. MITIGATION OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OBJECTIVE 1: ESTABUSH A MINIMUM OF 0.49 ACRE OF FORESTED WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF FORESTED STREAM BUFFER BY PLANTING NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEAR 1 SURVIVAL OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIES IN ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS WILL BE AT LEAST 80 PERCENT. YEAR 3 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES WILL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 35 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS. YEAR 5 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES WILL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS. OBJECTIVE 2: UNIT INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES THROUGHOUT THE MITIGATION SITE PLANING AREAS. FERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEARS 1-5 HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, CLRLEAF BLACKBERRY (RUBUS LACINWTUS), SCOTCH BROOM (CYTISUS SCOPARIUS), BUTTERFLY BUSH (BUDDLEJA SP.), POISON HEMLOCK (CONIUM MACULATUM), CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE), BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE), AND REED CANARYGRASS WILL NOT EXCEED 20 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN ALL PLANING AREAS. OBJECTNE 3: PROVIDE UPLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: INCREASE IN AREAL COVER OF MINE WOODY SPECIES IN THE PLANTED BUFFER, AS MEASURED IN OBJECTIVE 1 TO BE USED AS A SURROGATE TO INDICATE INCREASING HIBFFAT FUNCTIONS. OBJECTIVE 4: PROTECT THE MITIGATION SITE FROM ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEARS 1-5 CONDUCT YEARLY QUAJTATIVE MONITORING TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF THE SITES DURING THE 5-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD FOR HUMAN DISTURBANCE INCLUDING BUT NOT UNTIED TO FLUNG. TRASH. AND VANDALISM. 2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 2.1 MONITORING THE MfTICATION AREAS WOULD BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WOULD ENSURE THAT THE BMPS ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS, AND THE ON -SITE CONSTRUCTION WORK (INCLUDING EARTHWORK AND PLANING) WOULD BE COORDINATED TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED. AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, AN 'AS -BUILT MTICATION REPORT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA WITHIN 1 MONTH OF MITIGATION INSTALLATION. POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OF THE MITIGATION AREAS WOULD BE PERFORMED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD BY QUAUFIED BIOLOGISTS. MONITORING WOULD BE PERFORMED QUARTERLY THE FIRST YEAR AND ANNUALLY FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS AND OBJECTNES OF THE MITIGATION ARE BEING MET. A COMBINATION OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTTATNE MONITORING ACTIVITIES WOULD BE USED TO ASSESS THE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PROPOSAL ACTIVITIES WOULD INCLUDE CONDUCTING SITE VISITS TO MONITOR UNNATURAL SITE DISTURBANCE, TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT, MID COLLECTING DATA FOR THE QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA FOLLOWING EACH MONITORING EVENT. APPROPRIATE CONTINGENCY MEASURES WILL BE DEVELOPED, AS NEEDED, BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL TO ENSURE THAT THE SITES DEVELOP HEALTHY VEGETATION THAT MEETS THE OBLIGATIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED PERMITS A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILENAME Q .A0An A res. nnrr—LIT 2.1.1 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING THE FOLLOWING BULLETED ITEMS DESCRIBE THE METHODS TO BE USED FOR THE QUANTITATIVE MONITORING. MONITORING SCHEDULE, AND REPORT DEADUNES. • THE MITIGATION SITES WILL BE ASSESSED BY AN APPROPRIATE QUANTITATIVE VEGETATIVE COVER FIELD ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY. THE UNE INTERCEPT METHOD WILL BE USED FOR DETERMINING PERCENT AREAL COVER FOR WOODY AND INVASIVE SPECIES. • QUANRTATNE VEGETATION ASSESSMENTS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME METHOD IN EACH CONSECUTNE MONITORING YEAR. • QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENTS WILL BE PERFORMED BETWEEN JUNE 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15 OF EACH MONITORING YEAR. • MONITORING REPORTS WILL BE SENT TO AGENCIES REQUIRING MONITORING REPORTS BY FEBRUARY 15 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. • QUANTITATIVE MONITORING WILL INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION OF THE SITES FROM PERMANENT PHOTOGRAPH STATIONS. 2.1.2 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING QWJJTATNE ASSESSMENT WILL BE PERFORMED YEARLY TO VISUALLY ASSESS THE HEALTH OF PLANTS AND IDENTIFY AREAS THAT MAY NEED CONTROL OF NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTNSES. ADDITIONALLY, DURING YEARS 1, 2, AND 3 THE SCREENING PLANTINGS (SP-1) WILL ALSO BE QUALITATIVELY MONITORED TO VISUALLY ASSESS THE HEALTH OF THE PLANTS AND IDENTIFY AREAS THAT MAY NEED CONTROL OF NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTNTIES. 2.2 MAINTENANCE THE PROPOSED MITIGATION IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WITH MINIMAL ONGOING MAINTENANCE PLANTED VEGETATION SPECIES SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO VARYING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE PUGET SOUND LOWLAND; HOWEVER, SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION MIGHT BE NEEDED DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS AFTER INSTALLATION TO ENSURE THE LONG-TERM SURVIVAL OF THE PLANTS. THE NEED FOR IRRIGATION WOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OBSERVED DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. TO ENSURE RAPID ESTABUSHMENT OF THE PLANT COMMUNITY, TREES AND SHRUBS WOULD BE PLANTED CLOSER TOGETHER THAN WOULD GENERALLY OCCUR IN NATURAL MATURE STANDS SOME NATURAL MORTALITY IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR DURING THE MONITORING PERIOD. ALL DEAD AND DOWNED WOODY MATERIAL WOULD BE LEFT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE MICROHA3TATS FOR WILDUFE PLANTS WOULD BE REPLACED AS NEEDED TO MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. MAINTENANCE TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES IN THE MITIGATION AREAS MAY BE NECESSARY. DURING THE MONITORING PERIOD, IF IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT INVASIVE SPECIES ARE IMPEDING ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIRABLE NATIVE PLANTS. MEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES. A PROGRESSIVELY AGGRESSIVE APPROACH WOULD BE USED TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES. CONTROL MEASURES WOULD FIRST INCLUDE HAND CUTTING AND/OR GRUBBING AND REMOVAL; IF THIS FAILS, AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HERBICIDE (RODEO. OR EQUIVALENT) MAY BE APPUED. 2.3 CONTINGENCY MEASURES IF MONITORING INDICATES THAT THE SITES ARE NOT MEETING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. CONTINGENCY MEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED (TABLE 2-1). SITE COMMONS WOULD BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE MOST APPROPRIATE COUNTERMEASURES. INFORMATION FROM THE ANNUAL MONITORING PROGRAM WILL BE USED TO IDENTIFY ANY MAINTENANCE AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. IF PROB1.E MS ARE IDENTIFIED IN MONITORING, KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS WILL DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND IMPLEMENT PROPER MAINTENANCE OR CORRECTIVE ACTIVITIES. THESE ARMIES WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT. TABLE 2-1. CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR THE MTIGATIDN STIES PROBLEM CONTINGENCY MEASURE LESS THAN 80% OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIES SURVIVE IN YEAR 1 KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS (OR OTHER QUNJF1ED BIOLOGIST) WOULD ASSESS THE SITE TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDITIONS ARE PREVENTING THE PLANTS FROM THRMNG. APPROPRIATE MEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE LMTNG GROWTH. LOST PLANTS WOULD BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE SPECIES UNLESS APPROPRIATE NATIVE WOODY SPECIES ARE VOLUNTEERING AT A RATE SUFFICIENT TO REPLACE THEM. ADDITIONAL MEASURES (SUCH AS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PROTECTION) WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF NECESSARY. ADDITIONAL PROTECTION COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF AN HERBIVORE REPELLENT (PLANTSKYDD OR EQUIVALENT). PERCENT COVER FOR WOODY SPECIES NOT MET IN YEAR 3 OR 5 KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS (OR OTHER QUWFIED BIOLOGIST) WOULD ASSESS THE SITES TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDITIONS ARE PREVENTING THE PLANTS FROM THRMNG. APPROPRIATE MEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE L ATNG GROWTH. INVASIVE SPECIES EXCEED PERCENT COVER THRESHOLD IMPLEMENT/REVISE INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET AT YEAR 5 CONTINUE THE MONITORING REGIME FOR 1 ADDITIONAL YEAR. THE SITES WOULD CONTINUE TO BE EVALUATED EVERY YEAR UNTIL THEY MEET THE STATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES. OTHER CONTINGENCY MEASURES MAY BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THIS PERIOD. F WA SHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A. Commiirty 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINE mom-. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A MITIGATION NOTES I I DRAWING NO. 55 OF 57 GREEN RIVER BEGIN PROJECT BP STA 1+00 _ i1, 1995 FEMA FLOODPLAJN BOUNDARY c7 ; EXISTING QREEN RV yzalitrfor 200 UNEB�/ VARIANCE REQUEST THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) 18.44.100(C)(1), WHICH SPECIFIES A 14-FOOT WIDE TRAIL WITH 2-FOOT SHOULDERS. THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 12-FOOT WIDE TRAIL WITH 2-FOOT WIDE SHOULDERS. < \ � EASEMENT #7203020421 X` 150' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH \\��\ \�., �- BLACK RIVER \\\ o4. ,22 • �•—••_•� FORT DENT PARK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 CENTERLINE 20' EASEMENT FOR UNDERPASS W-15008 AND 5990555 URBAN C R ANCY•_ • — . SOUTH LINE OF DRAINAGE CANAL EASEMENT #8002110444 200' SHORELINE BUFFER IMO -I Corn -nun ty Deve:,;prnent 1 EASEMENT #20030113001708 NCI FIBER OPTIC iIr ■ z r �z LL EASEMENT #9510261362 OFFSITE DRAINAGE I 1 1 U U t LEGEND: ®A DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) — • — • — URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER — — 200' SHORELINE BUFFER — --- — 1995 FEMA FL000PLAIN BOUNDARY PGRROPOSEDUBBING TRAILLIMITS FOOTPRINT TO CLEARING AND Parametrlx DATE: September 28, 2015 FILE: SITEPLAN Site Plan Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington STA 1+75 40 40 z 3 TRAIL FOOTPRINT !, zt F W L z 5 g TRAIL rL _I._._ABA CONSERV BUFFE 0 ma a ,g 30 30 20 20 X• 1 1 CLCY=liA 1 I� 1 ,0 10 -160 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 STA 2+50 40 40 z1 a 1 TRAIL FOOTPRINT W z gl TRAIL ccsi c S I _{ 1 II 30 1 } ------- 20 20 1 I1 1 _OHWM APPROX. URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER - i �V== �1 I I 1 I 10 10 -160 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -60 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 STA 3+25 40 40 zI TRAIL FOOTPRINT 1 I 15 W z 0 §I TRAIL % N,.a cI 30 1 1 1 '-30 T zo 20 OHWM APPROX. 1 I $___...--- URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER ELEV=15.3 —1 I II 1 I L ,o ,o -160 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -60 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 eo 70 80 90 100 0 10 Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington SCALE IN FEET 40 30 20 10 4o 30 20 10 STA 4+00 Z 3 c � iOoN TRAIL FOOTPRINT N ZZ aOI o z iii g TRAIL Q i EXISTING GROUND cor p OHWM APPROX. r • I ELEV= 3.4-1 -110 -100 - 90 -80 -70 - 60 -50 - 40 -30 -20 -10 O 10 20 STA 4+75 30 40 50 so 70 so 90 100 110 120 40 20 10 z al §r r TRAIL FOOTPRINT ,URBAN—, JSERVANCY- BUFFER 200 FT ;HORELINE FRl TRAIL q i EXISTING GROUND _OHWM ELEV= APPROX. 3.0 - I -90 -80 40 30 20 10 -70 -60 -so -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 I STA 5+50 so so 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 TRAIL FOOTPRINT zI a O or I I r TRAIL q r [ EXISTING GROUND --cor y APPROX. I I• ELEV=12.8 ELEV -60 - 50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 5o 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 40 20 10 160 40 30 20 10 Parametrix DATE: September23, 2015 FILE SECTIONS 0 10 Ic Cern-nr_In'ty Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington STA 6+25 40 TRAIL FOOTPRINT Z 3 0 TRAIL Q - ' cor 30 EXISTING - GROUND ------------------ ------ 20 OHWM APPROX. L ELEV=12 8 to -60 - 5o -40 -30 - 20 - 10 O 10 20 30 40 50 so STA 7+00 70 6o 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 40 TRAIL FOOTPRINT J 0 zl l 1 gl - ' cor TRAIL q I EXISTING GROUND 0 ONWM APPROX ELEV=13.4 10 I 1 -60 - 5o -40 -30 - 20 - 10 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 4o 30 20 10 0 30 20 10 0 P----- raraiutC.. R DATL: septemcerzi.2uio rnt. St�TiurvS 0 10 Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington SCALE IN FEET 40 30 20 10 0 STA 7+75 Q CONSERVANCY 1 BUFFER tU NEB WZ 0 TRAIL FOOTPRINT DOSING GROUNDin -D TRAIL Q APPROX. I ELEV=13.3 - 60 40 3o 20 10 0 — s0 -40 -30 NOTE: FLOODPLAIN IS NOT WITHIN SECTION RANGE. -20 - 10 O 10 20 30 40 so so STA 8+50 70 60 so 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 CONSERVANCY- BUFFER 2O9FT HORELINE IRISDICTION TRAIL FOOTPRINT IXISTING GROUND TRAIL APPROX. ,¢OHWM ELEV=1� I - 60 - 50 -40 -30 NOTE: FL0ODPLAIN IS NOT WITHIN SECTION RANGE. -20 - 10 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 4o 30 20 10 0 40 30 20 10 0 Para metrix DATE Septernber 23. 2015 FILE: SECTIONS Y II 0 10 I Com,-nlin.ty Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington L City of Tukwila Shoreline Environment Designations See Paola 20 t_ lam+lipet Ordinary High Water Mark Aquatic Environment High Intensity - 100' Buffer High Intensity - Outside Buffer Urban Conservancy - Levee - 125' Buffer Urban Conservancy - Levee - Outside Buffer Urban Conservancy - No Levee - 100' Buffer Urban Conservancy - No Levee - Outside Bu Shoreline Residential - Min. 50' Buffer Shoreline Residential - Outside Buffer Type 2 Stream (100' Buffer) o Type 2 Stream in Pipe Type 3 Stream (80' Buffer) o Type 3 Stream in Pipe Type 4 Stream (50' Buffer) Io Type 4 Stream in Pipe NE Quarter 23/23/04 ffer Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (100' Buffer) Potential Wetlands ® Category II Wetland (100' Buffer) 77 96e,-a aac Printed August 2011 1"=400' Location of OHWM, wetland sizes & location' are approximate only. Watercourses shown on this map have not been surveyed. A_..y... i� _ _ _ 1 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park, or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed to accommodate logical future connections. Segment A is adjacent to Fort Dent Park and will connect with the Green River Trail.. As described previously, it will become part of a larger planned regional trail system. C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section 18.44.100(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows: 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage to meet the standards of a 14-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. The proposed project is requesting a variance from the size requirement as specified in TMC 18.44.100 (C) (1). The proposed project plans to construct a trail that is 12-foot wide with 2-foot shoulders on each side. As a trail in a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail system, the proposed trail width will be compatible with other sections of the trail and will comply with King County's policy for trail width on trails with an anticipated usage of greater than 2,000 users per day (2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines). 1.3 No Net Loss Checklist Responses This section is dedicated to a narrative discussion on how this project is consistent with No Net Loss as defined in the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The following includes excerpts from the No Net Loss Checklist contained in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application package followed by a discussion of how this project aligns with said goals or policies (response text in blue). 1. Describe the existing condition of the shoreline area and riverbank. For example, what plants and how much vegetation currently exist within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction; what is the condition of the shoreline (how steep are the banks, is there any erosion or slope failure, what are the soils like); is there "hard armoring" on the riverbank (for example, concrete or wooden bulkheads, metal sheet piling, rip - rap [rocks or concrete/asphalt blocks]), is there paving or are there any structures within the 200 ft. shoreline jurisdiction; are there any docks, piers, decks or other structures near or over the water; are there any above -ground or below ground utilities; etc.? [For ease of review, the above paragraph is divided into topics, see below] What plants and how much vegetation currently existing within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction? The buffer vegetation along the Black River within the project area (Station 1+00 to Station 7+65) ranges in density and width. In the area of Fort Dent Park, within approximately 10 to 30 feet of the Black River, the vegetation is dense. The understory is comprised of invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) intermixed with native shrubs. The native shrubs include willow (Salix spp.) directly adjacent to the river, and small shrubs and trees further upslope consisting of beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Mature trees in this area include Douglas fir (Pseudatsuga menziesii) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). With the exception of an access road composed of compacted tire track, the remainder of the vegetated shoreline consists of maintained grass with a healthy population of mature trees intermixed with trees planted within 5 to 10 years. Species include Douglas fir, American _ter — . / . A der"` Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black cottonwood, American elm (Ulmus americana), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum). Some of the trees planted within the last 5 to 10 years are stressed, dying, or dead — likely due to the drought -like conditions the region has been experiencing in recent years. The mature trees appear healthy. Vegetation in the vicinity of the railroad is mostly invasive Himalayan blackberry and bare earth. The remaining buffer is developed with playing fields, a parking lot associated with the playing fields, the existing Green River trail, and the railroad. These man-made features extend into the 125-foot buffer and dominate the remaining area within shoreline jurisdiction. The mix of vegetation offsite, along the Green River is similar to what is found directly adjacent to the Black River except a bit narrower, about 10-15 feet. The Green River trail bisects the vegetated buffer from the project site. The remaining 125-foot buffer is as described in the previous paragraph for the project site. What is the condition of the shoreline (how steep are the banks, is there any erosion or slope failure, what are the soils like)? Slopes directly adjacent to the Black River and Green River are steep, approximately 2:1. No erosion or slope failure is evident, which is likely due to the density of vegetation. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) characterizes the soils as Newberg sill loam, which is typically found in floodplains. This type of soil has good drainage. Above the banks, where the trail is proposed, the Iandform is relatively flat with small undulations. Is there "hard armoring" on the riverbank (for example, concrete or wooden bulkheads, metal sheet piling, rip -rap frocks or concrete/asphalt blocksj)? No hard armoring is evident along the riverbank. The Green River trail is on a levee. Is there paving or are there any structures within the 200 ft. shoreline jurisdiction? Areas of paving are (located within 200 feet of the shoreline. Paved areas include the Green River Trail, and a parking lot. There is also a soccer playing field that is surfaced with field turf and an elevated rail bridge owned by BNSF. Are there any docks, piers, decks or other structures near or over the water; are there any above -ground or below ground utilities; etc.? The railroads and one utility are the only over -water structures within the project area. 2. How will your project change the existing condition of the shoreline described above? In the City of Tukwila, the project will change the existing condition of the shoreline by removing trees and constructing a paved 12-foot wide multi -use trail with 2-foot shoulders. A total of 15 trees will be removed. None of the trees along the densely vegetated riverbanks will be removed, only the trees in the grassy area. Of the 15 trees, 10 significant trees (per TMC 18.06.776) will be removed. The remaining trees are big leaf maples that are 2-3 inches at diameter breast height (DBH), not multi-trunked trees. Please see the civil plan set sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E showing trees identified for removal and areas where they will be replaced per TMC 18.44.080. le -,.., fr,& & t 1 Mom,-__ Iry Marrh �Mg I cc n_1c71_nQA Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 3. Please respond to the questions in the following chart - A No Net Loss analysis (prepared by a qualified biologist) must be prepared if the response to any of the questions in the chart below is "yes": Will The Project: No Yes a. Alter/remove vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction? X b. Alter the river bank (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring etc.)? X c. Add fill in the shoreline jurisdiction? X d. Discharge new stormwater to the river? X e. Store or use hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction? X f. Construct an in- or over -water structure? X g. Increase impervious surface in the shoreline jurisdiction? X 4. The way to achieve no net loss of ecological function is to mitigate the loss through one or a combination of the mitigation sequencing steps identified below. If preparing a No Net Loss analysis, please discuss how your project addresses the following mitigation sequencing steps (TMC 18.44.070 H.3.): a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing critical area and buffer impacts to the greatest extent feasible with no permanent or temporary impacts to the Black or Green Rivers anticipated. The trail alignment was selected to follow the existing topography where feasible, and to integrate into the existing landscape. The proposed paved trail will largely follow an existing dirt path and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and infiltration. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed project will adhere to the applicable tree protection, retention, and replacement ratios as described in TMC 18.44.080 including the installation of native plantings. To ensure the plantings are successful, the project will comply with applicable vegetation management requirements specified in TMC 18.44.080 (D). All temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. King County will apply the following additional strategies to critical area and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: • Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground -disturbing activities. Denis Law Mayor January 14, 2016 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip" Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION RECEIVED JAN 1:;2016 Community Development Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segement A LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on.or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6593. For the Environmental Review Committee, Kris Sorensen Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen !Oehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Raman Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers 0901tWittelUT4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7th Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shorelin Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve a existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and nel bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lak Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Rento Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers becaus the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroa owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associate wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffe regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of gradin and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and withi shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native specie. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridge. retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of th year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project anticipated to have no net Toss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by stat federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlif Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act N Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significar adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCU 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee uncle their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environment impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, th lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady W,a' RedeiA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be NUCIVII rc rj,n City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: -.4)—S 46? Gregg Zimmerm : n Ad inistrator ' Public Works Dep. . ent Terry Higashiydfna, Administrato Community Services Department January 15, 2016 January 11, 2016 Date Date Department of Community & Economic Development terson, d inistrator Fire &.Ethergenc rvices C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF e $ ton DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V APPLICANT: King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7th Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segement A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net Toss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Natirve American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. PLAN Planning Review Land Use Version 1 ) January 11, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Vicki Grover 1425 430 7291 j vgrover@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SWPPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen ( 425 430 6593 ( ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERCMEETINGDATE: January 11, 2015 Project Name: Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A Project Number: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Project Manager: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Owner: City of Renton; City of Tukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific Applicant/Contact: King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7th Floor; 201 S. Jackson St; Seattle WA 98104 Project Location: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila Project Summary: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned• Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation. The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and is anticipated to last 12 months. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 3.94 acres paved Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 5.26 acres w/ shoulder Site Area: 1.2 mile length in Total Building Area GSF: 5.26 acres w/ shoulder Tukwila & Renton STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Project Location Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 2 of 13 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop an approximate 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. There is an existing trail where the subject improvements but it is not fully improved to accessibility standards or with a paved surface. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park to Naches Avenue SW. Most of the trail is within the City of Renton, with the municipal limit roughly between the two sets of railroad tracks west of Monster Road. The proposed trail is typically 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The trail section is 14,317 feet long and 12 feet wide for a total paved footprint area of 3.94 acres. With the addition of two -foot shoulders on either side, the trail footprint is 5.26 acres. Between Fort Dent Park and Monster Road, the trail alignment lies south of the Black River. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained (awns associated with Fort Dent Park. It follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The 150 feet west of Monster Road is on existing paved surfaces. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new pedestrian bridge. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail aligrirnent from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, and within wetland buffer areas. The east trail terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The project is estimated at about $3,000,000 and would take approximately 12 months to complete. No net loss of ecological functions is required as the trail improvements are located in the Black River and Green River shoreline jurisdictions within the cities of Tukwila and Renton. The proposed bridge crossing of the Black River also requires a no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life for state approvals. Within Renton, wetland buffers in the Black River Forest Riparian area would be impacted and mitigated for. The proposed trail route is designed so that no wetlands would be impacted, that no construction activities would be below the Ordinary High Water Mark of any stream, and with an Endangered Species Act No Effects Determination. The applicant submitted multiple biological discipline reports describing impacts and mitigation of environmental impacts resulting in a no net loss determination for the project as a whole (Exhibit 4, page 2-12). The project is subject to federal funding through Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration and therefore requires federal regulatory review in addition to local jurisdictional review by the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. Streams, wetlands, and other sensitive resources in the project vicinity area also subject to federal and state regulations (Exhibit 4, page 1-4). Approvals have been provided for National City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ELF, SSOP, S-CUP, S-V Page 3 of 13 Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Exhibit 18 and 27). Additional federal regulations or statutes that apply to the protection of vegetation and wildlife in the study area are the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. Federal evaluation of the presence of Essential Fish Habitat as required of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has occurred. State and local regulations that apply to the project include the Shoreline Management Act and critical areas ordinances for the Cities of Renton and Tukwila. The City of Tukwila requires separate shoreline permit approvals. Other approvals that may be required are a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as necessary. Comments were provided by the Muckleshoot Tribes Watersheds and Land Use Team. Initial comments from the Tribes, provided May 13, 2015 (Exhibit 11) asked that trees along the Green River not be removed, that all trees to be removed along the river be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio, that trees removed along the Black River be placed in the river, and information about how the proposal would ensure there are no conflicts with two WRIA 9 restoration projects near the confluence of the Green and Black Rivers. King County staff provided a response to the comments (Exhibit 26). Based on the applicant's response, the Muckleshoot provided additional comments December 28, 2015 (Exhibit 29) that ask for greater detail of how the trail route in Fort Dent was considered in regards to the WRIA 9 restoration projects and that further explanation of no net loss of riparian functions with respect to the proposed trees along the rivers be provided. Staff provided a response to the Muckleshoot on January 5, 2015 following discussion with the applicant (Exhibit 33). PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16:. Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: Exhibit 35: Exhibit 36: Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 4 of 13 Environmental Review Committee Report Zoning Maps - Cities of Tukwila Renton and Tukwila Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Vicinity Map Permit Narrative and Justification, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Drainage Technical Information Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Stream Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Draft Geotechnical Report - Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inct for Parametrix, dated February 24, 2015 Environmental Checklist, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 17, 2015 Agency Comment; Muckleshoot Tribes, email dated May 13, 2015 Agency Comment; City of Renton Department of Community Services, dated July 23, 2015 Project Vicinity Map Biological Assessment — Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated August 2015 Construction Mitigation Plan Lake to Sound, 16-mile Conceptual Regional Trail Corridor 60% Construction Drawings, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 NEPA Exemption Determination, Washington State Department of Transportation document, dated September 12, 2012 and Addendum, WSDOT, dated November 3, 2015 Slopes Map, City of Renton Black River Bridge Location, Site and Exploration Plan, prepared by HWA GeoSciences, dated January 1, 2015 Wetlands Vicinity Map Stream and Wetland Buffer Impacts Maps Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Map Project Drainage Basin Map Floodplain Map; 1995 DFIRM Response email to Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email from Kris Sorensen, dated December 10, 2015 Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A, prepared by Parametrix, dated October 24, 2011 Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A Pedestrian Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 30, 2011 Second Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email December 28, 2015 Bridge Ground Improvements Limits, Plan, and Elevation Landscape Plan and Mitigation Plantings Plan Photos of Trail Route Response to Muckleshoot Comments #2, email from Kris Sorensen, dated January 7, 2016 Floodplain Impact Area WRIA 9 — Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan Projects Advisory Notes City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Report of January 11, 2015 Page 5 of 13 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: Proposed earthwork consists of clearing, grading, and fill along the trail route and foundation work for the new nonmotorized bridge that would span the Black River. The proposed paved trail surface covers approximately 3.94 acres of area over its 1.2-mile length (Exhibit 4). The existing trail alignment is generally flat. The steepest area of the completed trail is approximately 5 percent for the approaches to the new bridge. The steepest slopes in the project vicinity are the slopes along the Black River and are identified between 40 and 90 percent slope according to City of Renton software (Exhibit 19). The applicant submitted a Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 that evaluates the grading along the trail and also submitted a Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015 that identifies earthwork associated with the new bridge (Exhibits 6 and 9 respectively). Grading along the non -bridge portion of the trail consists of approximately 0.72 acres outside the trail footprint (Exhibit 6, page 1-1). Grading is estimated at approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill (Exhibit 17, sheets C1 to C15). Much of the trail segment is already improved as a 10 to 12- foot wide gravel maintenance and.recreational trail within the Black River Riparian Forest. From the Forest, the trail is currently paved as it crosses Monster Rd SW and heads west towards railroad undercrossings where the existing trail becomes a dirt footpath and dirt road. The western most 600 feet of the trail is existing maintained lawn at Fort Dent Park. Earthwork is also required for the new bridge foundations on the north and south banks of the Black River to be located east of the existing Monster Rd S bridge (Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 30). The Geotechnical Report finds that the subsurface within the area of the proposed bridge supports is underlain by fill over loose alluvium, over medium dense alluvium, over Glacial Till or Bedrock, and are relatively deep, liquefiable soils that are prone to settlement and lateral spreading during a seismic event. According to the geotechnical report, suitable bearing material for bridge foundations was encountered at approximately 45 feet on the north bank and at 67 feet at the south bank (Exhibit 9, page 3, Subsurface Conditions). To establish the bridge foundations, approximately 60 soil columns would be constructed to stabilize a 1.6-foot by 35-foot area on the south side of the river and a 16-foot by 25-foot area on the north side of the river (Exhibit 27). Each column would be approximately 4 feet in diameter and extend 30 to 40 feet below existing grade. All ground improvements for the bridge are above the Black River Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Drilling equipment is anticipated to remain upslope of the OHWM at all times. The Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge states the probability of catastrophic bridge failure and human life fatalities will be significantly small when the pile foundations combined with stone columns are used for the bridge support (Exhibit 9). Because the submitted report is a draft, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge as part of required building permit submittal. Staff also recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015 or any updated geotechnicai report created for the project. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, 5-CUP, S-V Page 6 of 13 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015 or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090, and Tukwila Shoreline Regulations TMC 18.44. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The trail alignment is proposed through six wetlands within the City of Renton and within the shoreline jurisdictions of the Green River and Black River in the City of Tukwila and the Black River within the City of Renton. A total of 1.31 acres of wetland buffers and stream buffers would be permanently and temporarily impacted by the proposal. There are no construction activities within 25 feet of the Green River or below the OHWM of the Black River so no temporary or permanent stream impacts are anticipated as long as best management practices are followed during bridge construction (Exhibit 27, page A-9). The applicant submitted two reports specific to impacts of wetlands and the rivers/streams associated with the project: a Stream Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 7), and a Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 6). Additional analysis of wetland and stream impacts is provided through the two submitted Endangered Species Act (ESA) No Effects Documents (Exhibits 27 and 28). No trail or construction work is proposed through wetlands (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). The applicant proposes mitigation plantings and revegetation of areas within the project as part of overall project mitigation. The mitigation planting plans are described in the "Vegetation" report subsection of this staff report. Permanent and temporary impacts to wetland buffers would occur. The area of permanent impacts to wetland buffers is approximately 0.49 acres (21,321 square feet). The area of temporary impacts to wetland buffer during construction is approximately 0.12 acres (5,302 square feet) (Exhibit 6, page 4-1 and Exhibit 22). These areas would be graded and existing vegetation and trees would be removed. The submitted Stream Discipline Report identified the potential stream impact area as within 200 feet of the Green and Black Rivers to cover the shoreline jurisdictional areas of the cities of Tukwila and Renton (Exhibit 7, page 3-1). The Black River Riparian Forest is also included because the forest is regulated as a shoreline within the City of Renton. The area of permanent impact of stream buffers is approximately 0.73 acres (31,641 square feet) although 0.13 acres overlaps with impacted wetland buffers and was assigned to the wetland section for impact analysis. About 0.40 acres of the permanently impacted stream buffer area is already permanently impacted by pavement, gravel, or other impervious surfaces (Exhibit 28, page 7). Temporary impacts to stream buffers would occur due to clearing and grading and may occur from potential erosion, sedimentation, and noise disturbance during construction. The total amount of temporarily impacted stream buffer is anticipated at about 0.10 acres (4,455 square feet). The Stream Discipline Report states that because the portions of the affected buffer are already degraded and that these areas would be replanted once construction is complete, temporary clearing along the streams are not expected to have a substantial effect on stream habitat or fish resources (Exhibit 7, page 4-2). All proposed bridge components would be designed and installed in accordance with the provision of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (Exhibit 7). The HPA review and approval is provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The permit requires that no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life and that unavoidable impacts be addressed through compensatory mitigation of the bridge project. The proposed prefabricated steel girder pedestrian bridge its approximately 109 feet long and 14 feet wide. Bridge construction sequencing is proposed as construction of the foundation system, lifting the preconstructed bridge on a crane onto the foundation. The crane would operate from the level area above the Black River bank crest (Exhibit 14, page 1-7). Bridge work is anticipated to begin in May of 2016 and is expected to last approximately 5 months with over -water work expected to be accomplished City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report oflanuary 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 7 of 13 in approximately two weeks (Exhibit 27, page 11). Impact avoidance and project minimization measures for the bridge construction are provided in the No Effect Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat document (Exhibit 27, page C-1). The outlined measures cover bridge design, bridge installation, equipment use, construction materials, and containment. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that all of the bridge related impact avoidance measures be followed by the applicant as listed in the No Effect Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat document Appendix C (Exhibit 27). A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife is required by the state for overwater work for the bridge crossing of Black River and any conditions of the HPA are required to be followed. The Muckleshoot provided comment that a WRIA 9 restoration project at the confluence of the Black and Green Rivers may be impacted by the proposed trail (Exhibit 29). This project is known as LG-17 and is part of the WRIA 9 plan for the area (Exhibit 35). Project LG-17 consists of restoration of a 50 feet width riparian area along the bank of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence with the Green River. The applicant provided a response that portions of the restoration project within Renton would be restored as part of this project, approximately 21,330 square feet from the City of Renton line to the Monster Rd Bridge, and that the riparian area along the trail corridor could potentially be fenced as part of the project to limit trail users from accessing the area (Exhibit 33). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A, Exhibit 27. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090, and Tukwila Shoreline Regulations TMC 18.44. b. Ground Water Impacts: Ground water was observed in the areas of the new Black River bridge crossing during boring drilling at a depth of approximately 13.5 feet on the north bank and 19 feet below the existing ground surface on the south bank and due to the relatively high permeability of the fill soils and silty sand, it is expected that ground water levels are reflective of the river level (Exhibit 9, page 4). According to the submitted geotechnical report, because of relatively high permeability of the fill soils and silty sand, it is expected that ground water levels will be reflective of river level (Exhibit 9). The project Environmental Checklist states that no groundwater will be withdrawn and no water would be discharged to ground water (Exhibit 10, pages 8-9) as a part of the project. A review of nearby non project sites was evaluated for potential contamination of the project area in the WSDOT NEPA documentation (Exhibit 18). The evaluation found that the risk of encountering contamination from regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the proposed project corridor, is low. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not applicable. c. Storm Water Impacts: No permanent impacts are anticipated from stormwater runoff once the trail project is complete (Exhibit 5, page 3-3). Some grading work will impact the 100-year floodplain where the trail alignment is located within the flood hazard area. The applicant submitted with the project application a Final Technical Information Report (TIR) for Drainage and Floodplain, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 5). Additional floodplain analysis specific to the new bridge is provided in the Biological Assessment, prepared by Parametrix, dated August 2014 (Exhibit 14). The TIR states that stormwater from the completed paved trail would sheetflow and be infiltrated or intercepted by vegetated areas between the trail and waterbodies along the trail. No impacts to the hydrology of the Green River or Black River would result from City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 8 of 13 operation of the project. The project would not add any pollution -generating impervious surface that could contaminate or change water quality of the nearby streams (Exhibit 7, page 4-2). Portions of the trail route are located within the 100-year floodplain area in both the cities of Tukwila and Renton and the net impact of the proposal would be more excavated area than fill (Exhibit 25). Approximately 1,050 feet of the trail alignment near the western end (Tukwila side) of the proposed trail corridor would be below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain (Exhibit 6, page 4-21). The majority of the existing trail alignment is elevated above the floodplain. The proposed bridge and abutments are designed to be above the 100-year floodplain elevation with the bottom of the bridge approximate 6 feet above the floodplain elevation. In the areas where the trail is below floodplain elevation, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill will be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation is proposed (Exhibit 5, page 6-1 and Appendix F, and Exhibit 32). Within Tukwila, approximately 115.64 cubic yards of fill and 5.47 cubic yards of excavation are proposed within the floodplain. Within Renton, approximately 100.89 cubic yards of fill and 236.39 cubic yards of excavation are proposed within the floodplain. The net result for the project is approximately 25 cubic yards of material excavated from below the floodplain elevation (Exhibit 5, page 6- 1). Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not applicable. 3. Vegetation Impacts: Permanent and temporary impacts of existing vegetation would occur along the trail alignment, within stream and wetland buffer areas, and through the removal of trees. Approximately 150 trees are proposed for removal. The applicant submitted reports specific to analysis and impacts of vegetation, critical areas, and critical habitat for fish: a Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 8), a Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 6), and two ESA No Effect Determination documents, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 2015 and October 2011 (Exhibits 27 and 28). The ESA documents found that the trail improvements and bridge would have no effect on ESA -listed species or critical habitat. Temporary impacts of vegetation are anticipated to be limited to the areas along the trail. Trees and lower vegetation would be cleared along the trail as identified on the submitted clearing plan (Exhibit 17). The Final Critical Areas Report states that trail construction is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover within the critical area buffers (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre -construction conditions and would be re -planted or seeded with native species. Mitigation plantings and restoration areas along the project alignment are proposed to offset the permanent impacts of the lost vegetation and functions and values of the shoreline and project areas. The proposed plantings along the trail, mitigation plantings, conservation area plantings, and tree replacements for the project are proposed to help offset impacts within the shoreline and critical areas. Vegetation in temporarily affected areas would likely return to a state resembling pre -construction conditions within a few growing seasons after the completion of construction. The City of Renton has provided specific requests of the applicant for plantings of native plants along the trail segment within Renton that include submitting a landscape plan for areas cleared along the trail (Exhibit 12). As part of the project shoreline permit, staff will recommend that the applicant submit a landscape plan for the City of Renton Community Services to review and approve. Within Fort Dent Park within Tukwila, approximately 20 deciduous and fir trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter would be cleared for trail construction (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). Other trees may be affected by disturbance of understory vegetation within the areas shaded by the trees' canopies, or through root compaction by construction activities. Because these trees are located within the shoreline zone for the Green River, trail construction would be subject to the requirements of a Tree Clearing Permit per TMC 18.54.070. Ths permit would identify all affected trees, along with the measures that would be City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 9 of 13 implemented to protect them. Any tree larger than 4 inches diameter that is removed within the City of Tukwila would be replaced with one or more new trees, based on the replacement ratios in TMC 18.54.130(3). The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface (Exhibit 12). In total, approximately 129 trees would be removed within the City of Renton, primarily consisting of cottonwoods (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). Approximately 53 of the trees proposed for removal are between 6 inches and greater in diameter including 16 cottonwoods. Most of the trees proposed for removal in the City of Renton are within the regulatory buffers of streams and/or wetlands. As discussed in the Final Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized below, compensatory mitigation for the Toss of trees in these areas would focus on enhancing ecological functions and to provide equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. All cleared trees adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest larger than 6 inches in diameter, whether they are inside or outside of a regulatory buffer, would be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. The Muckleshoot Tribes provided comments regarding the no net loss assessment for the project especially with the removal of mature trees within the shoreline areas (Exhibits 11 and 29). They request that trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along the rivers. The Muckleshoot also asked if trees to be removed as part of the project can be added to the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. King County has provided response that the request for a 2:1 ratio can be accommodated but there are no plans for placing wood debris in the Black River as mitigation because the project and proposed mitigation provides for no net loss of ecological processes and functions of the shoreline areas (Exhibit 26). The number of trees to be planted in the City of Renton as part of the project is approximately 900. The proposed deciduous and evergreen trees are a mixture of Bigleaf Maple, Paper Birch, Sitka Spruce, Douglas Fir, Pacific Willow, Sitka Willow, Western Red Cedar, and Vine Maple. The City of Tukwila does not specify required compensatory mitigation ratios for impacts to wetland buffers or stream buffers. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter that are removed within sensitive areas or shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila would be replaced as prescribed by TMC requirements. The subject proposal includes multiple replanting areas for project mitigation impacts, screening for the heron colony, and as part of shoreline buffer conservation (Exhibit 31). The Final Critical Areas Study states that this type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat (Exhibit 6, page 5-4). The Critical Areas Study further states that the riparian functions that would benefit from mitigations include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. All planting areas are proposed within the City of Renton. In total, these planting areas are approximately 98,297 square feet of area (2.26 acres). Three mitigation planting areas are proposed that total 48,768 square feet and are located on the Black River banks and in the north -central area of the Black River Riparian Forest area. Two shoreline buffer vegetation conservation areas of approximately 42,741 square feet are proposed to be replanted on the north and south banks of the Black River. A screening planting area is proposed of approximately 6,788 square feet to provide fuller screening of the heron colony from the trail route. All areas are to be planted with native tree and shrubs species (Exhibit 31). A maintenance and monitoring plan for the plantings was submitted with performance and contingency measures as part of a 5-year reporting period following installation (Exhibit 6). Based on the submitted Final Critical Areas report and mitigation plan proposed, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to follow the proposed or future updated planting plan and monitoring and maintenance provided in the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015. Mitigation Measures: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 10 of 13 1. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090, and Tukwila Shoreline Regulations TMC 18.44. 4. Wildlife Impacts: A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report was submitted with the application, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, and provides analysis of anticipated impacts to non -fish wildlife (Exhibit 8). A Final Critical Areas Report was submitted with the application, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, and provides analysis of anticipated impacts to special status fish and habitat (Exhibit 6). The applicant also submitted an ESA No Effects Document evaluation (Exhibit 27), which evaluate impacts of regulated fish. Essential fish habitat was assessed in the No Effects document and it was determined that the project and new bridge would not have an adverse effect on the ESA listed fish and their critical habitat (Exhibit 27). Staff has recommended a mitigation measure in the "Water" report subsection that the project follow the recommend avoidance actions in the submitted Biological Assessment to reduce potential impacts to fish and water. These avoidance actions include construction best management practices, a temporary erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance ESA Program Guidelines, SPCC plan, and requirements and conditions specified in the HPA issued by WDFW. The trail project alignment is home to more than 50 species of birds including osprey, red-tailed hawk, bald eagles, a variety of songbirds, and a colony of great blue herons that has actively nested in the Riparian Forest every year since 1986 (Exhibit 10, page 10). Data from the WDFW indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by many waterfowl species, including bufflehead, mallard, gadwall, wigeon, scaup, and green -winged teal. Mammals present in the area are likely to include coyotes, raccoons, beavers, mice, voles, and moles. Reptiles and amphibians that use the project area habitats include garter snakes, Pacific chorus frogs, and long -toed salamanders. Impacts to area wildlife and habitat would occur due to construction and increased use and activity of humans of the corridor. The Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report assessed the potential for project - related noise and human activity to disturb sensitive wildlife species up to 1,300 feet from the trail alignment based on published guidelines to avoid disturbance to sensitive species that may occur in the project vicinity. The degree of disturbance during construction would depend on the noise level, the timing and during of construction activities, and the sensitivity of individual animals. Construction activity is expected to begin in late spring 2016 and likely be completed within 12 months (Exhibit 8, page 4-3). Clearing in spring and summer may damage or destroy the nests of migratory birds. The Vegetation and Wildlife Report states that wildlife sensitive to disturbance would likely avoid the area during construction in the short-term and not likely influence the Tong -term viability of wildlife in the project corridor area (Exhibit 8, page 4-3). Much of the project area is already graveled or well worn dirt pathways and any permanent loss of habitat along the project corridor is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in habitat availability. Also, within wetlands in the study area, no temporary or permanent impacts are anticipated and therefore local populations of wetland dependent wildlife species are not expected to be affected by the project (Exhibit 10, page 4-3). There may be adverse effects on sensitive wildlife as the frequency of use and increase in numbers of users are expected on the trail with full operation and use of the trail following construction. Trash may also increase along the corridor and can attract wildlife species such as crows, jays, and/or mammals that could in -turn create impacts. Bald eagle, great blue heron, and pileated woodpecker are special -status wildlife species that have been observed in the project area and special -status wildlife that may occur (not observed) are Western toad, Peregrine Falcon, and Townsend's big -eared bat. Special -status species include (1) species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, (2) species that are candidates or proposed for listing under the City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 11 of 13 ESA, (3) species listed by WDFW as endangered, threatened, candidate, or sensitive, and (4) other species for which critical habitat areas are designated by the City of Renton or for which fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are designated by the City of Tukwila. Analysis of impacts to the Western toad, Peregrine Falcon, and Townsend's big -eared bat are provided in the submitted Vegetation and Wildlife Report (Exhibits 8). A summary of potential impacts to bald eagles, herons, Chinook salmon, and bull trout are provided below. Bald Eagles: The Vegetation and Wildlife Report states that the project would not be expected to affect the availability of suitable habitat for bald eagles in the study area (Exhibit 8, page 4-3). No trees proposed to be removed by project construction are suitable for bald eagle nesting, roosting, or perching. The nearest bald eagle nest is more than 1,000 feet from the trail. Construction noise and activity has the potential to disturb foraging activities in the Black River Riparian Forest and there are other readily available areas for foraging in the general vicinity and along nearby bodies of water (Exhibit 8, page 4-4). Long-term, the USFWS says that non -motorized recreational activities greater than 330 feet from active bald eagle nests are unlikely to disturb nests (Exhibit 8, page 4-11). Blue Heron: Although not a state -listed or ESA -listed species in Washington, the great blue heron is a species of special concern in British Columbia due to declining productivity. For many years, the Black River Riparian Forest supported one of the largest breeding colonies of great blue herons in Washington State, with more than 100 nests distributed throughout much of the forested area. For much of that time, the greatest density of nests was near the eastern edge of the lagoon above the Black River pump station, near the confluence with Springbrook Creek. Portions of the trail alignment north of the Black River pump station are approximately 250 to 500 feet from stands that have been used as pre -nesting congregation areas. N.o vegetation clearing would take place in forested stands within or immediately adjacent to the Black River nesting heron colony during for trail construction. Herons could possibly be impacted due to their sensitivity of trail use (Exhibit 8, page 4-10). The potential for disturbance to nesting herons would be minimized by the distance from the trail and continued vegetated buffer screening between the colony and trail. The selected location of most of the trail alignment, at the edge of the Riparian Forest and adjacent to currently developed areas reduces the likliehood that nesting birds would perceive the trail use as a new disturbance according to the Vegetation and Wildlife Report (Exhibit 8, page 4-10). Improvements to the existing trail could allow for an increase in heron observers determined to get close to the colony. WDFW recommends a year-round buffer of 656 feet around nesting colonies and seasonal buffer of 1,312 feet. Grading, construction, and vegetation clearing are discouraged within the year-round buffer and loud activities are discouraged from February to September in the seasonal buffer area. WDFW provides a number of management recommendations for the colony. The effects of grading and construction could be visible to nesting herons —as they fly in and out of the nesting colony. Noise from construction machinery may be audible within the colony site. Sudden, loud noises may frighten birds off nests, rendering eggs and young more vulnerable to predation. Such disruptions may diminish reproductive success during the season in which they occur, and could contribute to abandonment of nests or even of the colony. Also, the additional noise sources could exacerbate stress levels for a nesting colony that has been subject to noise and other disturbance from ongoing activities at the concrete recycling plant and Tight industrial development nearby. The average maximum noise levels associated with trail construction equipment would not exceed 83 decibels or the 92-decibel threshold that defines unusually loud activities according to WDFW's management recommendations. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential for disturbance to breeding herons, activity restrictions would be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Fish: Fish habitat and fish are present in both the Green River and Black River areas where the project is located. Fish habitat and fish presence and potential impacts to fish along the project alignment are described in the submitted Final Critical Area Study, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 and the two ESA No Effect Determination documents, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 2015 and October 2011 (Exhibits 27 and 28). The ESA No Effect Determination document for the whole project excluding the new City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA1S-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 12 of 13 bridge states that the project will have no effect upon designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon or bull trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead and that the project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (Exhibit 27, pages 10-11). The ESA No Effect Determination document for the new bridge states that the project will have no effect on ESA -listed species or critical habitat (Exhibit 28). Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not Applicable. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The subject project would impact park systems of both cities by improving the trail systems at Fort Dent Park in Tukwila and in the Black River Riparian Forest within Renton. The Black River Riparian Forest is approximately 94 acres of wetlands, shoreline, and natural areas with an established trail system. Fort Dent is approximately 54 acres with soccer fields, a playground, picnic area, and other park amenities and includes the privately run Starfire Sports Complex. A new connection to the regional Green River Trail would be created at Fort Dent. No temporary closures of the Green River Trail are anticipated during project construction. The existing trail currently receives low levels of use for walking, running, bicycling, pet exercise, and bird -watching. The uses would likely be increased through proposed project improvements. The Black River Riparian Forest recreation and natural area was acquired with a variety of funding sources including a grant from what is now the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). King County consulted with RCO to ensure the consistency of the subject trail corridor project with the intent of the grant. RCO confirmed that the grant program encourages public access to wildlife areas and the trail is consistent with the grant. Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater regional trail system network. Segment A provides a much needed improved trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy railroad lines. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not Applicable. 6. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: The trail alignment passes through the boundaries of the White Lake historic and cultural site. The White Lake site is located on the south bank of the Black River at its confluence with the Green River. The applicant conducted a cultural resource survey found no evidence of the archaeological site during field investigations (Exhibit 10, page 16). The submitted Environmental Checklist states that although no historic properties were found in the investigation, the western portion of the project area is nonetheless considered sensitive for the presence of precontact archaeological resources because of the White Lake site and other known ethnographic villages (Exhibit 10, page 16-17). Excavation to construct the trail within archaeological site boundaries is anticipated to be minimized as designed and is not proposed to exceed 9 to 12 inches within the construction area. Staff recommends a mitigation measure that if any archeological/cultural resources are found that construction stop and the applicant contact the City of Renton Planning Division, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Mitigation Measures: 1. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Depariment of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA 7. Transportation City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL - SEGMENT A ReportofJanuary 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUAIS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S•V Page 13 of 13 Impacts: The subject 1.2-mile trail project would improve a non -motorized corridor through South King County. The subject Segment A of the Lake to Sound regional route would establish a new street crossing over Monster Rd S, a stream crossing over the Black River, and improve the safety of under crossings of functioning railroad lines. The project could result in the reduction of the number of vehicles and bicyclists using the streets by transitioning some drivers into trail users. The trail would connect Naches Ave SW in Renton to Fort Dent Park, Starfire Sports Complex, and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. A new signalized crossing would be installed for trail users to cross Monster Rd S. Traffic that uses the arterial would be slowed and stopped at the new signal. For the trail to cross the Black River, an improvement of the existing Monster Road Bridge was considered, but ultimately a new 114-foot non -motorized bridge is proposed to cross the Black River just east of the Monster Road Bridge. Crossing of the existing bridge was deemed unsafe due to the structural integrity of the existing structure. No new motor vehicle trips per day would be generated by the subject project (Exhibit 10, page 17). Trail users are anticipated to access the trail from residences, places of employment, or from the existing Fort Dent and Black Forest parks areas. Vehicular parking would not be added or eliminated. Existing parking for trail users would be available at Fort Dent and around the Black River Riparian Forest area. The trail alignment requires railroad under crossings in both City of Renton and City of Tukwila just west of Monster Road, on the south bank of the Black River, where the two elevated railroad bridges cross the Black River heading north -south. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company has requested that the trail potentially be covered within 30 feet of the overhead railroad bridges to prevent debris from falling on trail users. If required, the cover would be approximately 12 to 14 feet above the trail for vertical clearance and safe passage of trail users (Exhibit 10, page 15). King County is coordinating with the railroad companies regarding design features to protect the railroad operations and railroad property. Trail right-of-way acquisition from the railroad companies is proposed by King County to be done following environmental review and prior to trail construction for the north -south railroad lines. No acquisition of railroad owned property is needed along the east -west railroad corridor that runs just north of the proposed trail alignment in the northerly area of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not applicable. E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant" (Exhibit 36). ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. CE.y of Renton : cffing S 133rd-St-�—; .r. . �.. r.. a...r. �.. • z, F-ort Dant Park 953 0 477 953 Feet WGS_1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere L .� .iy -•1•��Y..a'..a atlVl w. • Legend City and County Boundary [i] Other t h CI of Renton t..; Zoning RC -Resource Conservation R1-Residental 1 du/ac R4-Residentel 4 du/ac R6•Residentral - 6 DU/AC R8-Residensal 8 dulac R1O-Residential to du/ac I WI c ' R• 14 �.‘ \ R-10 .* y R.10 134th St - •1,Rra S�JB .topt-f,I'�,,;► R . Re8 R 84�gy s04,,R'-8 . r Earlingfon Park R•1 °f1=R,8' - t. - .O'\ R-8 3rglPI -, 8 R- 8 R-10 R-8 t `. �'+^„ T��~•`� t.."-'-~- f �I Vim" CN-Commercal Neighborhood CV -Center VI;:egs CA -Commercial Anerid UC-Urbcn Center CD -Center Downtown COR-Commercial Offico/Residenttel CO-Comm_rcalOrnce IL-Induslnal - L:ght IM-Industncl Medum IH-Industrial - Heavy City of1L S Finance & IT Division Information Technology • GIS RentonMapSupport Renlonwagov 1/5/2016 This map is a user generated static output from en Internet mapping s to eno is for reference only Data layers mat appeal on Iws map may or may not oe accurate current, or otherwise re',ahle THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION • .ter,,,. • Zoning Districts, Overlays, and Sub -Areas • • _ „r i.tiMM.y{pLR11.IaM **OS. aaAwvr a.* rrraraarriormorp“..ro City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map i0 ®P.. apo9 Yr: :'aVt inF.N'vrnJurwr ,, ..,,,.d, x.. -..w. awo 0 o 8 fit ill Notes None 0 953 0 477 953 Feet WGS_1984_Web Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere cityofReriton Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT 3 1r7r, - � +'�•Sunb 6 tt Ivd • r3la;k River riparian Forest 13 , Sprrnq rook Creek Legend City and County Boundary Other t City CI of Renton l.: Environment Designations O Natural • Shorel ne H gh ntensity Shorel ne 'so aled H gh ntensity Shoreline Residenttal • Urban Conservancy n .htricrtintinnc — Type Np Type Ns Information Technology - GIS Renton MapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 1/5/2016 er generated static output from an Internet mapping site and only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate current, or otherwise retahle MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION EXHIBIT 4 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared for King County King County _7 1 i 7. April 2015 Prepared by Paramctrix EXHIBIT 5 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 1 554-1521-084 (A/3T2008) EXHIBIT 6 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for King County April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 7 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound TrailSegmentA Stream Discipline Report RECEIVED APR 1.7 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Prepared for King County April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 8 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for King County April 2015 Prepared by Parametrnx EXHIBIT 9 Entire Document DRAFT Available Upon Request DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 February 24, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EXHIBIT 10 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENT Entire Document Available Upon Request Purpose of checklist.: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND I . Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April 9, 2015 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov EXHIBIT 11 From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.usl Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty -protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). ( see page 7-75 in http://Vour.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre -spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante (mailto:SMirante@Rentonwa.gov} Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (mistv.blair@ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Staten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATTACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. 3 EXHIBIT 12 COMMUNITY SE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2015 TO: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner FROM: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: Revised Lake To Sound Trail Review Comments LUA15-000257 Upon further review of the Lake to Sound Trail project, the Community Services Department would like to submit the following revised comments: 1. There are several locations in the Plan Set where cottonwood and alder trees are proposed to be removed along the trail with no indication about how the area is to be restored. After reviewing the Final Critical Areas Report, only some of the tree removal locations are proposed to be restored. It is recommended that all disturbed areas noted in the Plan set be restored; more detail is required. In addition, we recommend that the trunks of the trees that are to be removed, be left on the ground. Stumps should be ground and the area re -vegetated. 2. There is no landscaping plan for planting along the trail. A landscape plan should be submitted as a condition of approval for the CUP and that the replanting plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 3. In areas identified with a 20' tree removal area, a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers , followed by densely planted shrubs and ending with trees in the outer 20' in order to minimize trail upheaval caused by tree roots. 4. The current plans call for Cottonwood trees only to be removed within the 20' buffer. Five additional trees have been identified to be included for removal, two of which are alder trees. Please add the additional five trees for removal. 5. In areas identified with a 10' tree removal area from the paved edge of the trail (treed section north of Naches), a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers followed by densely planted shrubs. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2015 6. Areas along the trail that have had clearing, tree removal, restoration, and at rest stops should include a split rail -type fence to deter public access into the riparian area. This should be noted on the plans; a detail of the fencing should be included. 7. Temporary irrigation should be included for all areas that are to be restored and for the duration of the 5 year monitoring plan. Include plans and details. 8. Interpretive Signage, particularly at rest stops about the habitat at the Black River Riparian Forest should be included as part of the design. 9. "Sensitive Area — "Please Stay on Trail" signage should be located at rest stops, near the split rail fencing and other locations as determined. 10. A greater variety of plant materials should be added to the plant list such as Ribes spp.- native currant, Vaccinium ovatum — Evergreen huckleberry and Rosa spp.- single flowers native roses. 11. The City's standard bollard and bench details should be considered. cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Terry Flatley, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator Para metrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL KID August 28, 2015 Mr. Kris Sorensen Economic & Community Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 EXHIBIT 14 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A — Biological Assessment 719 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 200 I SEAT LE, WA 98104 I P 206.394.3700 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED V AUG 31 2015 BUILDING DIVISION Hi Kris, On behalf of Jason Rich, King County Parks, I am submitting the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project. This submittal responds to your email request dated August 18th. Please note that, because the project has federal transportation funding, the BA follows the template and guidance used by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration is the federal lead agency. We've provided some additional language below intended to assist you with your floodplain compliance needs. In addition to fulfilling the requirements for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation between the Federal Highway Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the enclosed BA supports compliance with the terms of NMFS' 2008 biological opinion for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City of Renton, as the local jurisdiction with permitting authority under the NFIP, is required to demonstrate that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA -listed salmonids. The project element with the greatest potential to affect ESA -listed salmonids or their habitat is the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The potential effects of bridge installation and operation are the primary subject of analysis in the BA. Documentation of the compliance of the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A pedestrian bridge with the terms of the NMFS NFIP biological opinion is presented in Section 6 (Floodplain Analysis) of the BA. Potential effects of other elements of the proposed trail are addressed in Appendix A, October 2011 No -effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A. In addition, as discussed in the April 2015 City of Renton Critical Area Study for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project, the project will result in no net fill below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. No compensatory storage is required or proposed. The findings in these analyses support the determination that the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA -listed salmonids. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss further or need additional information in order to advance the processing of the shoreline conditional use permit application. Best regards, Jenny Bailey 6AQ Consultant Project Manager Cc: Jason Rich, King County Jenny Bailey, Parametrix File Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment Prepared for King County Parks King County 7 7 August 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 15 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME City of Construction Mitigation Description Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Construction Mitigation Description: Please provide 5 copies of a written narrative addressing each of the following: • Proposed construction dates (begin and end dates) Proposed construction dates are unknown and will be dependent upon permitting restrictions, fish windows, seasonal rain conditions, and habitat restrictions for nearby nesting herons. • Hours and days of operation Construction operations will be generally limited between Monday and Friday during an 8-hour consecutive period between 7:00am and 6:00pm. • Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling (i.e. weekends, late nights) Night, weekend and holiday work will not be permitted. • Proposed hauling/transportation routes Haul and construction site access with be from Monster Road and Naches Avenue, depending on the section of trail to be constructed. • Preliminary traffic control plan Traffic control along Monster Road will generally include single -lane traffic and sidewalk closures using flaggers and standard WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control plans. Traffic control at Naches Avenue and the trailhead will be limited to parking restrictions; this is a cul-de-sac and serves as parking for infrequent trail users. • Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Temporary erosion and sediment control measures from the King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009), Appendix D, will be applied during construction to limit dust, erosion, mud, and noise and other noxious characteristics of the construction. EXHIBIT 16 EXHIBIT 17 p• r d G 71 r 4 1i5 Nv 5T014 AS 1w TUC01 0 COVER SHEET EXHIBIT 18 Washington State YP Department of Transpor NEPA Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form Federal Aid Project Number: CM2017(110) Date: 11/3/2015 Intent of Submittal: U Preliminary Final 1:'Re-Evaluate Agency: King County Department of Transportation Project Title: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A County: King County Beginning MP: NA Township(s): 23N Ending MP: NA Range(s): 4E Section(s): 13,14 Miles: 1_1 Part 1- Project Description The Lake to Sound Trail is a continuous, 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound through the Cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines. This project develops a multi- purpose, nonmotarized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail and is 1.06 miles in length. Included in the project is a 114 ft. pedesliian bridge over the Black River. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Avenue SW (City of Renton), crossing Monster Road SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park (City of Tukwila). Part 2 — Categorical Exclusion Select one CE from 23 CFR 771.117 (CE Guidebook - Appendix A) that fits the entire project: (C)(3) NEPA Approval Signatures Local Agency Approving Authority Jr✓I Regional ocal Prr/gra Engineer 1Hto v3 Date /ar27/71('--- Date v-107i Local Pr grams Environmental Engineer Date c" �y1 - tir)- Federal Highway Administration Date Completed by (Print Official's Name): Lindsey Miller Telephone (include area code): 206-477-3549 l)-- 130/ f E-mail address: Lindsey.miller@kingcounty.gov DOT Form 140-100EF Page 1 of 9 Revised 5/2015 Part 3 - Permits, Approvals ea Right of Way (ROW) Yes No Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval ❑ 0 Corps of Engineers ❑ Sec. 10 ❑ Sec. 404 ■ ® Water Rights Permit ■ Nationwide Type ■ ® Water Quality Certification — Section 401 Issued by 1 Individual Permit No. ❑ // Coast Guard Permit ❑ f4 Coastal Zone Management Certification ❑ ® Tribal Permit(s) (if any) Eg ■ Other Permits (list) Right-of-way use permits, El ■ Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Permit City of Renton and Tukwila: Conditional Use ❑ Q Forest Practices Act Permit permit, City of Tukwila ►�/ is Hydraulic Project Approval j:/ ❑ ROW acquisition required? If yes, amount ■ local Building or Site Development Permits needed: 6,000 square feet ' ■ Local Clearing and Grading Permit Al■ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ■ 6 is relocation required? (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction a ►. Has ROW already been acquired for this project? If yes, attach responses to Appendix F in the CE Guidebook. ❑ ElHas an offer been made or have negotiations begun to acquire ROW for this project? If yes, attach responses to Appendix F in the CE Guidebook. el III Shoreline Permit ii • State Waste Discharge Permit /�/ 0 TESL Plans Completed ❑ /1 Is a detour required? If yes, please attach detour information. Other Federal Agencies - Does the project involve any federa federal agencies? ❑ Yes ►1 No If Yes, please describe. properties, approvals or funding from other/additional . Part 4 - Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work in or affect any of the following? identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental information if necessary. 1. Air Quality- Identify any anticipated air quality issues. • Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, identify exemption —please refer to Appendix G in the CE Guidebook for a list of exemptions. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Is the project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? ® Yes 0 No If Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted: .Tune 25, 2015 • Is the project located in an Air Quality Non -Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone or PM 10? ® Yes 0 No DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 2 of 11 Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 2. Critical and Sensitive Areas • Is this project within a sole source aquifer 0 Yes ® No If located within a sole source aquifer, Is the project exempt from EPA approval? If Yes, please list exemption: If No, date of EPA approval: • Will this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? ❑ Yes ® No Explain your answer. The project area provides habitat to Great Blue Heron and Bald Eagles. No nests were observed within the clearing limits of the bridge; the remainder of the project will occur in areas currently improved gravel paths (old railroad). To minimize any potential for disturbance to breeding herons outside of the immediate project area, activity restrictions will be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Additionally, noise in the surrounding area was typical of an industrial area (Renton Concrete Recyclers, Stoneway Concrete Black River, and Rabanco Black River Transfer Station). To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project will implement measures to minimize impacts to nesting birds. The Black River and nearby Duwamish river provides habitat for salnionids including coho, sockeye, and chum. No in -water work will occur as part of this project. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affected by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade -related effects, The bridge will be oriented on a north -south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The effects of clearing (mostly invasive species) in the riparian area will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long term, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. Is this project within one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting territory, winter concentration area or communal roost? El Yes ❑ No Please see the attached Bald Eagle Form for more information. • Are wetlands present within the project area? ® Yes 0 No If Yes, estimate the impact in acres: 0 acres Please attach a copy of the proposed mitigation plan. Direct stream and wetland impacts have been completely avoided. Approximately 1 acre of native species would be planted to compensate for stream and wetland buffer impacts. DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 3 of 11 3. Cultural Resources/Historic Structures — Identify any historic, archaeological or cultural resources present within the project's Area of Potential Effects. Does the project fit into any of the exempt types of projects listed in Appendix J of the CE Guidebook? 0 Yes El No If Yes, note exemptions below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence: April 27, 2015 (original concurrence on 9-15-2011) Date of Tribal consultation(s) (if applicable): _ Adverse effects on cultural/historic resources? 0 Yes ® No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA: 4. Floodplains and Floodways Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, is the project located within a 100-year floodway? © Yes ❑ No Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe impacts. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail is adjacent to the Green and Black Rivers with a finished glade as close as possible to existing grade while still providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. However, between A -Line Stations 1+00 and 12+25. approximately 217 cubic yards of fill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. This is the only fill and excavation activity below the floodplain elevation, and the net difference will not impact floodplain storage or function. DOT Form 140-100EF Page 4 of 11 Revised 5/2015 Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste — Identify potential sources and type(s). a) Does the project require excavation below the existing ground surface? ® Yes 0 No b) Will groundwater be encountered? ® Yes 0 No c) Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? ® Yes ❑ No d) Is this site located in an undeveloped area (i.e. no buildings, parking, storage areas or agriculture? ❑Yes ® No e) Is the project located within a one -mile radius of a known Superfund Site? ❑ Yes ® No f) Is this project located within a 14-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology databases? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, check the appropriate boxes below. ® Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), State Cleanup Site (SCS), or Independent Cleanup Program (ICP) ® Underground Storage Tank (UST) ® Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) ® Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) g) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? ® Yes 0 No (Please identify any properties not'dentified In the Ecology or ERS database search as an attachment — name, address and property use). In the September 2012 Lake to Sound Trail —SegmentA Hazardous Materials Discipline Report, five Ecology regulated sites, located adjacent to the proposed trail, were identified as having the potential to release contaminants to shallow soils or surface water based on their generator status or active permits. The site reconnaissance (conducted on November 2, 2015) confirmed that, with the exception of Multichem Analytical Services, the regulated sites located adjacent to the project corridor were still in operation. No spills or releases were identified for these facilities during the review of Ecology's FSID database and no evidence of spills or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on the lack of regulated USTs and lack of suspected or confirmed spills or releases; the risk of encountering contamination from these regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the project corridor, is low. h) Based on the information above and project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to generate, acquire or encounter contaminated soils, groundwater or surface water? ❑ Yes ® No Please explain: As part of the Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Addendum (dated November 3, 2015) which expands the project scope to include the construction of the pedestrian bridge; King County conducted a review of Ecology's Facility/Site Identification System (F/SID) and compared the updated review to the original screening (2012). Based on a review of Ecology's F/SID (http://www.ecv.wa.gov/fs/, accessed on October 15, 2015) no National Priorities List sites (Superfund sites) were located within a one -mile radius of the project limits. A review of Ecology's F/SID revealed eight sites within Y2 mile radius of the project corridor that had documented contamination. Seven of the eight sites were immediately eliminated from further consideration based on the criteria described below: • A hazardous materials and waste professional reviewed each site using a screening process to Identify sites of concern where it was likely that contamination would be encountered during excavation and/or dewatering. A site may pose a liability to the project if the site is located within close proximity (adjacent to the proposed project area), or hydraulically upgradient, or has a confirmed release of hazardous materials or petroleum products to soils or groundwater (traditionally 1/2 mile or less in distance). A %- mile search radius was selected because it was judged to encompass areas from which contamination DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 5 of 11 could reasonably be expected to migrate to the project footprint. • Seven of the eight sites (DJB Trucking — FS#2304, Arco Station & Mini Mart — FS#4552344, Anderson Joseph B — FS#8509656, , Becker Trucking Inc. Tukwila — FS# 17036781, Jumbo Deli — FS# 59337954, K & N Meats — FS#72559666, and Southland Facility — FS# 99853513) were considered to have a very low likelihood of adversely impacting the project and were eliminated from further consideration clue to one or more of the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. The eighth facility, Graphic Packaging International Inc. — FS# 14693954 — located at 601 Monster Rd, was physically situated about 500 feet southeast of the pedestrian bridge foundations (which is the only location within the project limits where project excavations will be deep enough to encounter groundwater and any contaminants that have migrated from off -site sources). To further characterize the site, King County reviewed the City of Renton permit history for the site (httos://permitsearch.mvbuildingpermit.com/Simole5earch.aspx, accessed on October 31, 2015) and historical aerial photographs at Historical Aerials by NETROnline (http://www.historicaerials.com/ , accessed October 31, 2015), and contacted the Ecology Site Manager via e-mail (November 3, 2015), and had a phone interview with the Tricia Sweat the Health, Safety, and Environmental Manager of Graphic Packaging (November 3, 2015). Based on a review of the available information, the underground vaults that resulted in a release to soil and groundwater were abandoned in place in the late 1980s (about 700 feet southeast of the bridge foundations). Between the early 1990s and 2001, a number of monitoring wells were installed on the site to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination. The Ecology LUST database notes (as provided by Donna Musa Site Manager for Ecology) stated that, In 1997, the petroleum hydrocarbon Impacts appeared to be localized around the abandoned oil/waterseparator (one of the underground vaults) and the adjacent monitoring wells, and that the results from the perimeter monitoring wells suggested that the impacts were generally confined to the site. Ms. Sweat reported that a contractor was hired In October 2015 to remove the abandoned vaults (including a sanitary sewer lift vault and the oil/water separator and its associated waste tank) and the surrounding impacted soil (this statement was confirmed by the City of Renton permit summary for the site). Based on the lack of off -site migration of the detected groundwater contamination, the recent removal of the source of the groundwater contamination, and the direction of groundwater flow (westerly); it is unlikely for the project to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil as a result of off -site migration from this facility. It is unlikely for WSDOT to assume liability for cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater as part of this project for the following reasons: • None of the adjacent properties appeared to have evidence of routine spills or releases to surface water or soils; • None of the adjacent properties (regulated or otherwise) had documented releases to soil, surface water or groundwater; • The eight sites located within y: mile of the project limits, that were identified as having a confirmed or suspected release to soils or groundwater, were deemed unlikely to migrate contaminants into the protect footprint for the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MICA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; o groundwater impacts were confined to the site and the source was removed; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter DOT Form 140-10DEF Page 6 of 11 Revised 5/2015 groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. For these reasons, it is concluded that no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from the proposed project No further investigation is warranted at this time. It is recommended that a HazMat Specialist be contacted if additional project changes are made that can potentially alter the conclusions made in this updated investigation; such as the addition of other project work that requires excavations below 10 feet bgs (local groundwater elevation), realignment, or property acquisitions. Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated November 3, 2015 for more information. If you responded Yes to any of the following questions (5A— SC, SF and SH), contact your Region LPE for assistance as a "Right - Sized" HazMatAnalysis Report/Memorandum most likely will be required. 6. Noise Does the project involve constructing a new roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? ❑ Yes Z No Does the project increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Is there a change in the topography? ❑ Yes ® No Are there auxiliary lanes extending 1 A miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? ❑ Yes Z No If you answered Yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 7. 4(f)/6(f) Resources: parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, historic properties, wild & scenic rivers, scenic byways)7eiz.A L ¢ 1 \04,e Cep,. c. e' c a. Please identify any 4(f) properties within the project limits and the areas of impacts. The Black River Riparian Forest, a park property owned by the City of Renton; CI"u Fort Dent Park, a park property owned by the City of Tukwila; and an archaeological site, W located in the north end of Fort Dent Park, eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Please see the attached 4(f) documentation. b. Please identify any properties within the project limits that used funds from the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act None c. Please list any Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Byways within the project limits. None DOT Form 140.100EF Page 7 of 11 Revised 5/2015 8. Agricultural Lands —Are there agricultural lands within 300 feet of the project limits? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, describe impacts: Are impacted lands considered to be unique and prime farmland? 111 Yes (21 No If Yes, date of project review by Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS): 9. Rivers, Streams (continuous or intermittent) or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Green River (09.0001) Black River (09.0004) b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Black and Green Rivers are both located in WRIA 9. The proposed trail alignment is adjacent to the south side of the Black River and will cross over the Black River on a new pedestrian bridge. 10. Tribal Lands — Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, trust and fee lands. Please do not list usual and accustomed area. Not applicable. 11. Water Quality/Stormwater Will this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOT's HRM, DOE's stormwater management manual for eastern/westem Washington or a local agency equivalent manual? ® Yes IIII No If No, explain proposed water quality/quantity treatment for the new and any existing impervious surface associated with the proposed project. Amount of existing impervious surface within the project limits: 54,450 square feet (1.25 acres) Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of this project: 37,424 square feet (0.86 acres) The trail is considered a non -pollutant generating surface. It is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak (low to equal to or greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second. The trail has been designed to direct runoff to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 12. Previous Environmental Commitments Describe previous environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project— if any. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-term maintenance of the trail; however, King County will maintain it until an agreement is reached (please see the Long -Term Maintenance Commitment Letter dated and signed February 12, 2013). DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 8 of 11 13. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exemptions noted in Appendix L of the CE Documentation Guidebook? below. project's potential impacts? describe impacts and attach appropriate information sources. Please refer to the United States Census Bureau populations within % mile of the elementary school qualify for 95.9 percent, The ACS data indicated and 24 percent of the population (5 of 5 percent of the public outreach. As such, future signs posted on site to no relocations or detours, a public populations, and the project adversely high and disproportionate in the area, We conclude that the 13166, as supported by Title VI of the " III Yes i:/ No appropriate justification in the space located within the limits of the data to support findings. If Yes, should be confirmed using at least two Report Card and an EPA summary of data for low income and minority 80.7 percent of the students at the closest has a total minority population of consisted minority populations very well" (which is above the LEP threshold for people in the study area requires on the King County website and Tagalog, Chinese and Spanish. from railroad companies, there are to include the needs of minority King County does not anticipate any or low-income populations identified Order 12898 and Executive Order If Yes, please note the exemption and If No, are minority or low-income populations ►/ Yes ❑ No If No, attach appropriate supporting documentation. Findings CE Guidebook for more information. King County reviewed Washington State American Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012, project limits. Based on the school data, free or reduced price meals and the school that 80 percent of the study area population years or older) speaks English "less than population). Exceedance of the LEP threshold outreach will include: updates and information communicate the project details in Vietnamese, Because the right of way acquisitions are outreach plan will be developed and implemented will affect non -motorized users equally; effects from this project on any minority " project meets the provisions of Executive Civil Rights Act of 1964. Part 5 - Biological Assessments and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat present Yes ❑ No Attach species listings. within die project's action area? 0 Affected ESA Listed Species 2. Will any construction work occur within 0.5 mile of any of the following? 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock -drilling or rock -scaling activity within one mile of any of the following? Oregon Spotted Frog proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? El Yes El No 0 Yes ® No . Yellow -billed Cuckoo suitable habitat? ❑ Yes M No ❑ Yes 2 No Spotted Owl management areas, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? ❑ Yes /1 No ❑ Yes /I No Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? ❑ Yes IZ No ❑ Yes El No Western Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? 0 Yes El No ❑ Yes g No Is the project within 0,5 mile of marine waters? If Yes explain potential effects on ❑ Yes © No 0 Yes (l No DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 9 of 11 Killer Whales and on Marbled Murrelet foraging areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? • Yes ❑X No ❑ Yes Z No Grizzly Bear suitable habitat? 0 Yes cis No ❑ Yes Z No Gray Wolf suitable habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 0 Yes g No Canada Lynx habitat? ❑ Yes Z No 0 Yes No Columbia White-tailed Deer suitable habitat? 0 Yes E No aYes Z No Woodland Caribou habitat? ❑ Yes (l No 0 Yes f No Streaked Horned Lark designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? 0 Yes ►1 No 0 Yes Z No Taylor's Checkerspot designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? iJ Yes El No ❑ Yes ® No Mazama Pocket Gopher designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? ❑ Yes No 0 Yes ® No Eulachon designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? ❑ Yes No • Yes ei No Rockfish proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes Z No A mature coniferous or mixed forest stand? E Yes 0 No f Yes ❑ No 4. Will the project involve any in -water work? 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent waterbody that either supports or drains to waterbody supporting listed fish? 6. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetland, pond or lake is connected to any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. Does the action have the potential to directly or indirectly impact designated habitat for salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated stormwater runoff or utilize water from a waterbody that supports or drains into a listed -fish supporting waterbody? 9. Will construction occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes go to 9a. 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve grading, filling or modification of vegetation or tree -cutting? 10. Are there any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species located the project limits? If Yes, please attach a list of these plant species within the 11. Does a mature coniferous or mixed forest stand occur within 200' of the project a Yes a No ►I Yes ❑ No that PP Yes • No critical • Yes 0 No /1 Yes • No 4 Yes ❑ No clearing, V. Yes • No within 111 Yes ' No action area. site? // Yes I1 No Analysis for No Effects Determination — If there are any Yes answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis is required. Attach additional sheets if needed. An analysis under the Endangered Species Act determined that the project will have No Effect on listed species or critical habitat, and No Adverse Effect on Essential Fish Habitat. The only listed species with the potential to occur in the project area are salmonids which will not be present in the project area during the summer months due to unfavorable river conditions. In addition, no in -water work is proposed. Effects to critical habitat are not expected because riparian habitat in the project area is poor quality, and effects to this habitat during project construction have been minimized. Please see the attached analysis for additional details. DOT Form 140 100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 10 of 11 Analysis for RRMP ESA 4(d) determination for NMFS — A local agency must be certified by the Regional Road Maintenance Forum to utilize 4(d). Maintenance Category (check all that apply) • 1. Roadway Surface ❑ 6 Stream Crossings ❑ 11, Emergency Slide/Washout Repair • 2. Enclosed Drainage Systems • 7. Gravel Shoulders ❑ 12. Concrete • 3. Cleaning Enclosed Drainage Systems • 8. Street Surface Cleaning ❑ 13. Sewer Systems • 4. Open Drainage Systems i 9. Bridge Maintenance IN 14. Water Systems • 5. Watercourses and Streams 0 10. Snow and Ice Control ❑ 15. Vegetation Describe how the project fits in the RRMP 4(d) Program: Effect Determinations for ESA and EFH If each of the questions in the preceding section resulted In a "No" response or if any of the questions were checked "Yes,' but adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect" determination, then check "No Effect" below. If this checklist cannot be used for Section 7 compliance (i.e., adequate justification cannot be provided or a "may effect" determination is anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is required. N % FS US S EFH Determination — `R No Effect 1,1 ' r 2' r li�1 No Adverse Effect ❑ NLTAA- Date of Concurrence ❑ Adverse Effect —Date of NMFS ❑ LTAA— Date BO Issued concurrence ❑ RRMP 4(d) Part 6 - FHWA Comments DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page ll of ll e`er De P ate 7i'L,•� of TranoPot'tatlotn Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary Part 1 Protect Description Federal Aid Project Number CM2017(110) Route Near State Route 900 Date 9-12-2012 Intent of Submittal 0 Preliminary Cl Final • Re -Evaluate Agency King County Department of Transportation Federal Program Title ® Other ■ 20.205 Project Title Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Beginning MP Townships 23 N Ending MP Ranges 04 E Miles I.1 Sections 13 County King County Project Description - Describe the proposed project, including the purpose and need for the project. This project develops preliminary engineering for the construction ofa multi -purpose, non motorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A travels through the Black Forest from Neches Avenue SW (Renton) to arrive at Fort Dent Park (Tukwila). Part 2 Environmental Classification NEPA SEPA ■ Class I - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ■ Categorically exempt per WAC 197-11-800 ►=4 Class 11- Categorically Excluded (CE) CE Type (from 23 CFR 771.117) (a)(3) ►�4 Determination of NonSlgnfBcance (DNS) ®Projects Requiring Documentation CE) 24.22) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ■ (Documented (LAG • Adoption • Programmatic CE MOU ■ Addendum ■ Class III - Environmental Assessment (EA) • Supplemental (For informational purpose only) NEPA Approval Signatures Local Agency Approving Authority ;2( Regional Local Prograrirs Engineer Highways and Local Programs Environmental Engineer ' ii.lt\.%L r"/((jei) dJ Federal Highway Ad/ninistration Date Date Date / / Date Completed By (Print Official's Name) Tina Morehead Telephone (include area code) 206-296-3733 Fax (include are code) 206-296-0567 E-mail tina.morehead@kingcounty. Part 3 Permits and Approvals Required Yes No Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval • ►^ Corps of Engineers 0 Sec. 10 0 Sec. 404 ❑ ® Water Rights Permit • Nationwide Type 0 :, Water Quality Certification - Sec. 401 Issued by ■ Individual Permit No. ❑ ® Coast Guard Permit 0 ® Tribal Permit(s), (If any) ■ ® Coastal Zone Management Certification ® ■ Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Permit ❑ ® Forest Practice Act Permit ❑ ® Hydraulic Project Approval • 0 Local Building or Site Development Permits ® ❑ Other Permits (List): Right of Way Use Permits - Cities of Renton and Tukwila; Conditional Use Permit - City of C.,Tukwila 0 Local Clearing and Grading Permit 0:4 ■ ROW acquisition required? q q =' 0 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System If yes, amount needed 6,000 SF (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction ® 0 Shoreline PermitIs ■ 0 q relocatan required? ❑ :, Has ROW already been acquired for this ❑ =' State Waste Discharge Permit project? ❑ ®le a detour required? If yes, please attach detour information. ® ■ TESC Plans Completed Part 4 Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work in or affect any of the following? Identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental lefomaation Itnecessary. 1. Air Quality - Identify any anticipated alr quality issues. Is the project included In the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? If Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted. Is the project located In an Air Quality Non -Attainment Area ozone, or PM10? Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? If yes, identify exemption, please refer to appendix H in the Air Quality: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities (ECS Guidebook. 0 Yes ■ No 10/1/10 or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, 0 Yes • No :. Yes 0 No ECS Guidebook for the list of exemptions: October 4, 201 l) 2. Critical/Sensitive Areas - Identify any known Critical Management Act ordinances. a. Is thls project within an aquifer recharge area ❑ a wellhead protection area ❑ a sole source aquifer ❑ If located within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt If yes, please list exemption or Sensitive Areas as designated by local Growth Yes * No Yes ® No Yes ® No from EPA approval? If no, date of EPA approval b. Is this project located in a Geologically Hazardous Area? c. WIII this project Impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed The project area provides habitat to Bald Eagle and Great Blue proposed improvements in the areas where puths and gravel roads Is the project within Bald Eagle nesting territories, winter concentration 0 Yes ❑ No Will blasting, pile driving, concrete saw cutting, rock drilling, 0 Yes :' No If yes, please descnbe species? ® Yes • No Explain your answer Heron. Impacts to habitat will be minimized by locating the already exist. areas or bald eagle communal roosts? or rock scaling activities occur within one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting area? 0 Yes • No nrm tan.laa FF ern i al Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued d. Are wellands present within the project area? ► I Yes ■ No If Yes, estimated area of Impact in acre(s): 0.9 Please attach a copy of the proposed mitigation plan. 3. ~ Cultural Resources/Hlstorle Structures - Identify any historic, archaeological, or cultural resources present within the project's area of potential effects. Does the project fit Into any of the exempt types of projects listed In Appendix C of the ECS Guidebook 11f Yes :e No If Yes, note exemption below. If No: Oate of OAHP concurrence 9/ 15/ 11 Date of Tribal consultation(s) (if applicable) &/ 14/ 11 Adverse affects on cultural/hlstorlc resources? ■ Yes ® No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA 4. Floodpiains and Floodways Is the project located In a 100-year tloodpialn? ® Yes ■ No If yes, is the project located In a 100-year floodway? til Yes ■ No • Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? C4 Yes • No if Yes, describe impacts. 'The Ill odplains of the Omen River and the Black River are located udjaccnt to the trail alignment from Station I+00 at the connection to the Oreen River*fruit to Station 14 + 86 near Monster Road. The proposed design provides on -site compensatory storage through a combination of cut and till in the Itoodpldin and additional eat:ovation adjacent to the existing trail. 'Mc project will provide u net cut of 58 cubic yards below the Iloodplain elevation. See the attached memo un Floodpldn Impact Analysis dated October 2011. 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste - Identify potential sources and type. Ooes this project require excavation below the existing ground surface? ® Yes ❑ No Is this site located in an undeveloped area i.e., no buildings, parking or storage areas, and agriculture (other than grazing), based an historical research? Li Yes IS No Is this project located within a one -mile radius of a site sj•a Confjtgied or Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) maintained by Department of Ecology? (i9 Yes 11 No Is this project located within a 1/2-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology Databases? :4 Yes ■ No If yea, check the appropriate box(es) below. :c Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) :r Underground Storage Tank (UST) ® Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? ® Yes ■ No If so identify any properties not identified in the database search that may affect the project (name, address and property use). Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated September _, 2012. Based on the information above and project specific activities, Is there a potential for the project to generate contaminated soils and/or groundwater? • Yes :t No Please explain: No reported release Idea wen identified adjacent to the protect candor in theregulatory agency database searrh. Due to detente of regulated sites Irom the project corridor, lock of rogulated USTi and supedsd or conarmsd sppies or releases, end maamel amount of ground excavation the ask of encountering comaminetion is low. See the aaaened Herudoue Motsnele Dtsapkns Report dated Soplemhar 2a12. If you responded yes to any of the above questions contact your Region LPE for assistance before continuing with this form. DOT Form 140.100 EF Revised 01/2011 Page 3 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued 6. Noise Does this project involve constructing a new roadway? 0 Yes ® No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? 0 Yes ® No Does this project increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Is there change In the topography? 0 Yes ® No Are auxiliary lanes extending 1-1/2 miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? 0 Yes ® No If you answered yea to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent Impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. 7. Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges, Historic Properties, Wild and Scenic Rivers/Scenic Byways, or 4 (f)16 (f). a. Please Identify any 4(f) properties within the project limits and areas of impacts. The project would use portions of two Section 4(t) properties, the Black River Riparian Forest and Fort Dent Park. Please see the attached Lake to Sound Segment A Section 4(1) Evaluation. b. Please Identify any 6(0 properties within the project limits and areas of impact. None c. Please list wild scenic rivers and scenic byways. None S. Resource Lands - Identify any of the following resource lands within 300 feet of the project limits and those otherwise impacted by the project. a. Agricultural Lands 0 Yes ® No If yes, please describe all impacts. Not applicable. If present, is resource considered to be prime and unique farmland? 0 Yes 0 No If Yes, date of approval from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) b. Forestffimber iID Yes 0 No If yes, please describe all impacts. fix project is located adjacent to the knack River Riparian Forest, a relatively undisturbed riparian hardwood furest. Approximately 0.9 acres or riparian.wctland area will he cleared. however this arcs is largely free from trees and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in substantial reduction in plant cover in the UE-acre study area c. Mineral 0 Yes El No If yes, please describe all Impacts. fll1T Cn.... 1An_1nn CC Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued 9. Rivers, Streams (Continuous, Intermittent), or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Fisheries WA Stream No. Ecology 303d Report No. (if knowm) Reason for 303d listing Fecal coliForm Date of Report 1 / 1 /08 Waterhody common name Black River and the Green River b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Green and Black Rivers are both in WRIA 9. The project will create non -motorized improvements on the east side of the existing Monster Road Bridge over the Black River (WRIA 09.0004). c. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. $ Name 9 Duwamish-Green 10. Tribal Lands - Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, trust and fee lands. None. 11. Visual Quality Will the project impact roadside classification or visual aspects such as aesthetics, light, glare or night sky. ■ Yes _+ No If Yes, please identify the impacts. 12. Water QualltylStorm Water Has NPDES municipal general permit been issued for this WRIA? 181 Yes 0 No Amount of existing Impervious surface within project limits: 54.450 square feet (t.25 acres) Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of project: 36.344 square feet (0.83 acre) Will this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOTs HRM, DOE's western or eastern Washington stormwater manuals, or a local agency equivalent manual? ® Yes ■ No If no, explain proposed water quality/quantity treatment for new and any existing impervious surface associated with proposed project. The trail is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak Clow of equal to or more than 0.1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The trail is considered a non -pollutant generating surface. DOT Form 140-100 EF Revised 0I/7011 Page 5 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued 13. Commitments a. Environmental Commitments • Describe existing environmental commitments None. b. Long -Term Maintenance Commitments • Identify the agency and/or department this project. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be /c1..� c,.,,„. .[.v<J, that may affect or be affected by the project - If any. responsible for implementing maintenance commitments associated with responsible for Jong -term maintenance of this ail. °'""'—._ Aq ,a .cn.�.d r .-.4 14. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exemptions, if Yes. Please note exemption and appropriate least two information sources. Refer to ESC Exemption 7: Installation of bicycle and limits. If no, are minority and/or tow income populations as noted In Appendix F of the ECS Guidebook ® Yes 0 No Justification in the space below. Findings should be confirmed using at Guidebook for more Information. pedestrian lanes, paths and faciities within the existing right away Located within the limits of the projects potential impacts? to support finding. If yes, describe impacts and attach • Yes • No if no, attach appropriate data appropriate supporting documentation. Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat within the project's action area? 1g3 Yes 0 No Please attach species listings. Affected ESA Listed Species 2. WIII any construction work occur within 0.5 miles of any of the following: 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock drilling, or rock scaling activities within 1 mile of any of the following? Spotted Owl management areas (CSAs, MOCAs, designated critical habitat, and/or potentially suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat? ■ Yes El No ❑ Yes :' No Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat and/or potentially suitable habitat? ■ Yes 0 No a Yes ' No Western Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? • Yes :' No • Yes :4 No Is the project within 0.5 miles of marine waters? If yes explain potential effects on Killer Whales and Steller's Sea Lion, and on Marbled Murrelet Foraging areas. ■ Yes ® No • Yes 0 No Killer Whale designated critical habitat? ■ Yes ,-. No ❑ Yes ®No Grizzly bear potentially suitable habitat? • Yes El No ❑ Yes -r No nor Form 140.100 EF Perna R of A Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations - Continued Gray Wolf potentially suitable habitat? ■ Yes El No ■ Yes El No Canada Lynx habitat ❑ Yes ® No • Yes e No Columbia White-tailed Deer potentially suitable habitat? ❑ Yes 1E1 No ■ Yes ® No Woodland Caribou habilat? • Yes :r No ■ Yes El No A mature coniferous or mixed fixed forest stand? El Yes ❑ No :4 Yes • No 4. Will the project Involve any In -water work? 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent either supports or drains to a listed fish supporting waterbody? B. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetland, pond, or lake that any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. 0oes the action have the potential to directly or indirectly impact designated critical salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated.stormwater runoff or utilize water supports or drains Into a listed fish -supporting waterbody, wetland, or waterbody? 9. Will construction work occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes, go to 9a. 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve clearing, filling, or modifications of vegetation or tree cutting? 10. Are there any Federal listed, threatened or endangered plant species located within limits? If yes, please attach a list of plant species within the action area. ■ Yes ® No waterbody that ® Yes ■ No is connected to ., Yes ■ No habitat for : Yes 0 No from a waterbody that ❑ Yes El No ki Yes ❑ No grading, i.4 Yes ■ No the project ❑ Yes ® No Determination If each of the questions in the preceding section resulted adequate justification can be provided to support cannot he used for ESA Section 7 compliance (i.e., anticipated), a separate biological assessment document NOAA Fisheries in a "no" response or if any a "no effect" determination, then adequate justification cannot be is required. . USFWS 4 .r1 }% :`. of the questions were checked "yes", but check "No effect" below. If this checklist provided or a "may affect" determination is Essential Fish Habitat Determination: ®No Adverse Effect 0 Adverse Effect. Date of NOAA Concurrence :4 No Effect bl/1 `'/ f f ■ NLTAA Date of Concurrence 0 LTAA Date BO Issued Analysis for No Effects Determination - If there are any "yes" answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis Is required. Please attach additional sheets if needed. Please see the attached No Effects Letter dated October 24, 2011 for an analysis of effects. The proposed project will have no effect on bull trout, Chinook salmon or Puget Sound steelhead because: The project will not result in additional pollutant generating impervious surface within the action area; there will be no alteration of peak flows or base flows in the project area; and there will be no in -water or over -water work and appropriate Best Management Practices will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and thechance of sediments entering the action area waterbodies. Temporary Erosion Sediment Control and Spill Prevention Control Plans will be prepared and implemented. DOT Form 140-100 EF Revised 01/2011 Page 7 of 8 a Part 6 FHWA Comments Use Supplement Sheet if additional space is required to complete this section. nrlr Form 140-100 EF Page 8 of 8 LUA15-000257 Segment A, Lake to Sound, Slopes fr.+ 4-1 • �_ _ _. ___ Sto 4ti Black elver EXHIBIT 19 BRSC-A' 550 -Riparian-Forest Trail Mon stet Rd`R Notes None 0 ra- � 128 0 64 128 Feat WGS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Legend City and County Boundary Other Gty of Renton l.. Addresses Parcels 1st Floor _y 1st Floor ❑ 2nd Floor ❑ 1st Floor f nth, Rnilriinnn >25%8 <=40% (Sensitive) I>40%8 <=90% (Protected) ® >90% (Protected) Environment Designations Li Natural ❑ Shorsine High Intensity ❑ 5horteine Isolated High Intensity ❑ Shoreline Residential ❑ Urban Conservancy (1 .litrisclirtiona cityofReffton Finance & IT Division Information Technology - GIS Renton MapSupportaRentonwa.gav 6/10/2015 This map ,s a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site am is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not of accurate current. or otherwise reliable THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIOls t i i i i i EXHIBIT 20 PAVED p00tsS ,"UN• OF (a 4fAx) \ ----- F'•---- F-^-..-F---- ,,., _STp I� __...:.a .�.' 0.07 ,T •• .,- -:-- _.- -- t • • __ f• Z-SSGN = EO' • itjuk. "au If a. b .ur. • • • • • • • • • A 3f0748, 0. 01h. car a 88 N , a yQx{/�� N 4 th 1 -1 1- N 30 El. ina �o Q7 A- N- a_ 9 m 2 P, EXHIBIT 21 MS eAV SOLIOUN SP6figbrook c'eek m m a A /_��N `65 c of / 7 b O Q 1 f6 Q. (S,/' \ O N E cp.9 CLE1-m cc, S a) N., CH NyC ✓ 02z 0m c Ud 0 OJ U0 O UQ el, C U cu 01 m° { pxw gLOZJdVllx8-oiA-aljZ-ldid\sooCdeyy\SIS\s3AS66\1SZl V80-tZSI.4SS\Or IN-LZSttstuag3\slnalold\OShcfl Sources King County City of Renton, WDFW 2014, WSDOT c 0 N R T ti 0 0 min Black River Riparian Forest Proposed Trail Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A LL 0 E 3 kZ 03 03 rg c53 5 2 I I 3 3 q-q a nBl j aag aull4a4eW _ 1; n it t2B Buffer -ba 6ldaegaully37ew—____t___ g-q ainBIj ass aulitiNew iaynB4O01 -' is • 1 7 01 J 3 1 • l i� ✓4 3 3 A a t 1 m n EXHIBIT 23 f�v4v_1 .Lr E 447 f �a. .,.. 44 U�ffaa } ' a pan SLOUId1SL OZIOJeH1°©'8VASIO15 S6611S21 V6O-LZ5L-YSSto0 LeN-2SLtsLuenaspa ord\OSd4 ft V-ed Land Cover Type Riparian-Nktland Herbaceous Wetland EXHIBIT 24 { MS any satpeN f' c z' cu w ° ifirrY •a SPringbrQaf Cree ro CCCi U 3 0 43 > EE N U m O 0 .-`,� ,v, t `ye .r..:-- ✓<- 0` �a pxw g OZJOVLLX -uW0-811E-L GCe��V J f ! Q� j j i ',spa 5 a i aue: 'r I cr h - 1� co s. C i co?" aCCm id\sooptlepy\SID\suo566\1SZi VoO-LZ9L-4SS\00 UI -LZSt\stuay3\sPatad\OSd\II 4ted N V ui 11 c N L vs .f. 03 �c� T co w N N 0 0 0 TDA 1a-Tukwila Indary TDA lb -Renton Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Black River Riparian Forest LUAI 5-000257 Floodplain 5 133ri • r EXHIBIT 25 Knit r f G� 406 .` 40e c.— --.. f— r Notes None co 1,023 0 512 1,023Feet WGS_1984_Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere Legend City and County Boundary Other Ea City of Renton Ea Floodway ❑ Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood) Streams (Classified) 2 3 city of Reton Finance & IT Division Information Technology - GIS Renton MapSupporteRentonwa.gov 6/10/2015 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site an. is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not bi accurate current. or otherwise reliable THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIOP EXHIBIT 26 253-876-3116 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorenser."..S L.,, .12.9,JV Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Hi Karen, For the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A (Renton LUA15-000257) project, I am providing King County's responses to the four comments you provided in the May 13 email below. Please let me know if you have further comments on these responses by December 28, 2015. Thank you. 1. Comment: The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (see page 7-75 in http://your.kingcountv.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? #1 Response: KC remains committed to the restoration of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. A portion of the trail project is in the vicinity of the salmon habitat restoration project LG-18 but does not conflict with it. The trail design includes replacement of trees removed during construction. Replacement trees will be planted in the 50 foot wide riparian buffer on publicly -owned property along the bank of the Black River in the project vicinity. In addition existing plantings from the 2005 volunteer effort will be protected during construction. 2. Comment: Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre -spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. #2 Response: The trail has been sited to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. Where tree removals are required great effort has been taken to have these be as far away from the river as feasible. Trees removed by the project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (requested below in question #4) or as directed by local permitting requirements whichever is greater. 3. Comment: Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. #3 Response: The project has committed to replanting trees in the riparian buffer and revegetating areas disturbed by construction. There are no plans for placing wood debris in the river as mitigation for this project because it already meets the overall criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. 4. Comment: Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Greer River and the Black River. #4 Response: We have determined that there is adequate space and we will accommodate this request. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton ENGINEERING • PLANNING • EN1 411 108th AVENUE NE, SUtTF. 1800 DELLEVUE, WA 98004-5571 T. 425. 458 . 6200 F. 425 . 458. 6363 vww.parammrix.com October 24, 2011 PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) EXHIBIT 27 Entire Document Available Upon Request Jason Rich King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements — Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King County is proposing to develop a 1.1-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non -motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non - motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal -aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated„ The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA -listed species could occur within the action area: • Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshatinytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) • Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) EXHIBIT 20 Entire Document Available Upon Request ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division PO Box 47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 EXHIBIT 2/ Kris Sorensen From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A- LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them aril offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly' replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 1 s EXHIBIT 30 `3 M cc y 45ct i pn I!1 1 3d Q. _5 ° z iig "1 e ill alb t Al f i $ O V AQRPOLIQ QO P! 7 ? riill!h 1 @ 1 _ +1' •___ II 11 a it S& ( as / r ' /' 1 1 Ww— W� ;VA 1 741 f X4 a EXHIBIT 3 i 1' ; 1 I- ,-• v.. .1411,1i,1111,,,,„.... --1- , , 1 ,1 11 11 11, ' / ,..-1 9; 5 ..1 , . % 1,11:1,111)- , I , 1,,, itk i ._„........,,,f.,..f3......1, 4, ! ,,, i li, 51 %, ,2' )1i sii,1 o . ...wi s --i- , i ,. , i:1:1,'1,'1,11,11,E7; I\ ,/ r , 7 \ \ 11'\;0 '1 ,"% Li, k \ \ I \IL 1111111111111:Fill 1111Rip Ippnow Pi 1 ,ijoRk li_A..411t. 1 mi L J 10- 51-k19°1 I§ , <0; / / / 4 / .44 I 1 Appendix E Mitigation Plans NVId NOIIVJ111W • dla .•••1* NIP 144/4111,11 Pik *it 1,4841.40, Wit 444.4.0 4 Oh. ** y ••. 44.2•Ptar••••i: ,a* * ,, •44.444•f �c ty 4444* 40111..440 4••••••••••i•�� * ••r�••Ri•••4 i •4 friti••44 •• a •f•1•'i••4•� p•,►.•• 4••0•4*11001•1•44 b4••••1••4•••4 q•••••Q•••1 Wilogp t** ••� ill" e . I i,1�••%•�••• fr �i=•4••.�'a+o� 1/ f J. o ✓rtu� Vl I.M • YNVnn.�.W nu\�Ut-.rytn v,.-i.. i-m. u\T+na. tap.... V* trtAt l^•I\ PQ I�rw o.n. n...1.. .n i[. :n1 r n ti 7, NV1d NOI1VDI11W t r. Lard 811: pi ®®® 0 as aa•li thi4 31II p���� el N a NVId NOLLVOIlWW W 00S z 0 Z0 gp 123 3 �-1 R? Z r 1 ljr4 a vM„ W. .. n.wee �o ,,,,, ,.. ,,,._,„,-., �m� .,,��.� .�, ate„ ,..� ..n NVId NOLLV91111N \4 / r EF 1F / t 7- �FtEFF !! `tFIF A 15 ®®G SgE 0 i3� � 4E 41 ag ea E� �g 14!!1 to a a £ r 1) •m utTttF.,(•o!Vw••• Nia• nnmim 1. ,_p* go! b ag a 3 D 0 z 0 b FAAG951 Na a :senaa 1 !MU - 1 !IVP111 0Y . 1 0; ix! urtYt W I.m V vsOUsna\o.��.\xr-•.y.\fss-rf:s-Yr vfr\xs.rsCWOVV Ak. IIiWIWn\ PAMOr r.M✓ sn[. Mr Y'r IL mrs r fa ry D a ij 1!1 JOHN !;1 111;041m 1 lig 1,1h 1111 1"! 141'J S31ON NOt1MOI111R 1111 A li;WT301 thlr 11 !mijil WOLIN 0111 it,N4 gliP ; [Ad 11 14of;I m'$ 41 Pe 14 lid01 WTI! $ Jfryf w r.n sfa.n.n„w_.n,,.,...y„.,._,,, r. ,.�*,..s.vvo,... \... rrmv..5 MOM ., ..,.y e.rt %no.,. w. ,.. n,>, fa a". a a° gi 1 5 S310N NOIIVOLLIIN 1 11'1 11'0 1 a ! ° ! Wocilrahi;m!li11411.111111 1110! 115110LNO 'dos 1111i P!, a g 1. POI I 1;111 1 I Pr 00111 1pj5 $�Q3TyT " ? apQ a 59€y t 11 41/ CC a tl dR IN 113p uflV .H ..M V 4, .r.i..rn..44t,.#4,A>V. 4,1>..T0444(40VVw. Mr!n V, rv>.w1 G.R ha.r... wit ;t .. SllY130 ONILNVld NOLLVJLLWJ sY AV gPj AI9QG?'AC as a ;senay I- iiH 1 LA g ; Q I El a EEs ' cu.rwn nme E E. ! 'u EXHIBIT 32 Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A -Line Station 1+00) Looking west (near A -Line Station 3+00) Looking west (near A -Line Station 5+50) Looking west (near A -Line Station 6+00) Looking east at railroad crossings (near A -Line Station 6+25) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A -Line Station 8+25) Looking west (near A -Line Station 11+00) Looking east at Monster Road driveway (near A -Line Station 13+50) Looking north at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 14+00) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 14+50/C-Line Station 201+75) Looking north at Monster Road (near A -Line 15+00/C-Line Station 202+20) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 16+20/C-Line Station 202+50) Looking north at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River (near A -Line 16+00/ C-Line Station 202+50) Looking south at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River (near A -Line 17+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east at Monster Road (near B-Line Station 102+50) Looking west (near B-Line Station 105+00 Looking east near B-Line Station 105+00) Looking west (near B-Line Station 121+00) Location of proposed box culvert, looking w Project End, looking north (B-Li EXHIBIT 33 Kris Sorensen From: Kris Sorensen Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:30 AM To: Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Cc: jason.rich@kingcounty.gov; Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov Subject: Response to Comments; RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: 6. L2ST Seg A Proj Narritive-Permit Descr & Justif.pdf; ESA NE documentation L2SA to Renton.pdf; L2S Seg A_Landscape Plan.pdf Karen, Thank you for the follow-up comments. I am providing responses below. Also, I have attached an updated study for the Endangered Species Act No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail "Segment A" pedestrian bridge submitted in December. Appendix A is the original No -Effects Determination for the full trail segment. Below are responses to your comments, with response #1 focused on the WRIA 9 LG-18 and LG-17 plans and response #2 focused on no net loss: #1: The LG-17 project is not in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project under review. LG-17 is located roughly % mile away. For LG-18, the marsh area that is to be restored is outside of the trail project area and the 50-foot wide shoreline riparian buffer is within the proposed project area. Multiple trail route alternatives were considered for this segment of the regional trail. The Segment A roLte was designed to have the least impact on the shorelines, mature trees, the existing sports complex, and railroad bridges in this area near the Black River and confluence with the Green River. The subject project will plant 21,330 square feet of the LG-18 riparian buffer area between the Black River shoreline and trail (see "BVC1" on the attached 'Landscape Plan'). The County is open to discussing placing a split rail fence adjacent the trail where the trail is close to the LG-18 project in consideration of increased use of the area by people and dogs. Shoreline permits are required for this project and further consideration of the comment can be considered at that time. Carol Lumb is the City of Tukwila staff contact that would likely review the Shoreline Permits in that jurisdiction (email contact is Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov). #2: The overall project has been reviewed for no net loss of riparian functions. The applicant has submitted multiple biological assessments that detail project impacts and mitigation. Trees are being replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio, in part, to account for the temporal loss of mature trees. I am attaching to this email the submitted Permit Narrative and Justification, where page 2-11 discusses the No Net Loss requirement for all development within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. I believe the studies listed in the no net loss summary were sent to you as part of the Notice of Application for the project (Critical Areas Study, Stream Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Report, Floodplain Study) and I can provide them as needed. I will follow-up this email with the new Biological Assessment of the pedestrian bridge from August 2015 as it is a larger file size so you also have this study. Thank you for your comments. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has. only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail wa: located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native ripariar vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A mor detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not he "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 M 0 n c c 0 • to u NE 7 0 17) 0 U. LL 3 L.J tgtj iU I A E c `Ea oiooI it i I� ri 1 1 CI J I I O ' EXHIBIT 35 ProjectLG-18: Black River Marsh at RM 11.0 (Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile 11.0, right bank. The project would remove about 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River at the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks. This small area would then be planted with appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large stumps with root wads would be placed to provide cover. A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created along the banks of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Opportunities and Constraints • The site has significant infrastructure that will make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive plant species now dominate the site. • In 2005, volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the south bank of the Black River just west of the Black River Pump Station. Black River confluence with the Green/Duwamish. Bla kRiver is to right. Railroad bridges are visible in the distance. February 2005 photo. LINKAGES C3U Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (A11-2) • Preventing new bank armoring and removing existing armoring (AII-6) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (tow-1) CID Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss ofslow water areas by creating new off - channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines • Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Page 7-75 a.aonin.,..,n,niek nn./ r'nn..nl 0. a n. Project LG-17: Levee Setback Between RM 11.7 and 11.4 (Right Bank) tower Green River looking downstream at river mile 11.7. To right is Fort Dent Park showing levee and possible bank set back area. February2005 photo. LINKAGES CID Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (All-2) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) CID Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss of slow water areas by placement of large woody debris along banklines Project Description Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints • Permission must be obtained by the City of Tukwila, and implementers will need to work with the company that manages the soccer complex on this parcel to design this project in a way that minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may also present challenges for implementation. Page 7-74 Green/Duwamish and Central Punet Sound Wntarchad Snlmnn Hahitnt Pinn_a, rm e,t Jnnc ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA15-000257 Application Date: April 17, 2015 Name: Lake to Sound Trait Segment A EXHIBIT 36 --- City of PLAN - Planning Review - Land Use Versior Engineering Review Comments Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. Contact: Vicki Grover 1425-430-7291 I vgrover®rentonwa A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshoh Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the run from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SW PPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Ir was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final' geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Repc and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen 1425-430-6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours betwe nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that Is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31 st of each year. Thi Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained Moira Bradshaw From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:39 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, PL16-0014, L16-0016, L16-0017, Notice of Application for SSDP and SSDV Moira, Thank you for providing us with access to the requested information for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, project referenced above. We have reviewed this information and offer the following initial comments and questions. 1. From the drawings providing, it appears that 15 trees that are 4 inches in diameter and greater and within 200 feet of either the Green River or Black River will be removed as part of the trail project within Tukwila. These trees should be placed within the Ordinary High Water Mark of the respective river as partial mitigation for the temporal loss of future wood recruitment function. Planting smaller sized trees, even at higher ratios (i.e. >1:1) does not mitigate for the this temporal impact. Both rivers are lacking wood and tree removal will further this impact unless mitigated as we propose. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. 2. We are concerned that this trail will preclude or limit proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG- 18 identified in the Chinook Recovery Plan for WRIA 9. The applicant needs to provide details as to how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench."(LG-17) The existing Green River Trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 3. The project also needs to ensure that tribal members have full safe access to their fishing sites on the Green River that are adjacent to or near the site during project construction. The permits should require that access be provided and the applicant to coordinate with us to ensure that there are no conflicts„ We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City/applicant's responses. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter 477A1!#44eWT 5 Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:Moira.Bradshaw@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:44 AM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, PL16-0014, L16-0016, L16-0017, Notice of Application for SSDP and SSDV Hi Karen - Thanks for taking an interest in the above project. Below is a link (hopefully) to our FTP site. The six files related to this project are in the Lake to Sound Trail —Tukwila segment folder. https://cloud.tukwilawa.gov/data/public/SHARE.php?hash=17d517 Please let me know if this isn't working and I will trouble shoot. Kind regards, Moira Carr Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 The City of opportunity, the community of choice www.tukwilawa.gov (206) 431— 3651 I Monday 1:00 -5:00; Tuesday and Wednesday 8:30 — 5:00 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:45 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Subject: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, PL16-0014, L16-0016, L16-0017, Notice of Application for SSDP and SSDV Importance: High Moira, We received the Notice of Application postcard for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above. We need more information and would appreciate a copy of the complete application packet sent to Tukwila by the applicant. As this is likely a large document, it might be easiest to put the materials on the City's FTP site and let us know how to access it. We appreciate your assistance with this request. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Mucklesh than T ibe Fis erie Divisi n tv Habitat Pr2 ' rn 39015 Ave IA Denis Law Mayor May 10, 2016 Moira Bradshaw, Project Planner DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip°Vincent, Administrator VIA Email: moira.bradshaw@tukwila.gov SUBJECT: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, Project #PL16-0014, File L16-0016 &L16-0017 Dear Ms. Bradshaw, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment regarding the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L16-0016) and Shoreline Variance (L16-0017) for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. The proposal is to construct a 12-foot wide trail instead of the City of Tukwila standard 14-foot wide trail. The City of Renton requests that the following conditions (indicated as mitigation in the DNS-M) be required for the project: • All construction activity shall stop if cultural resource artifacts are discovered during construction. Notification of concerned Tribes, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the City of Renton Planning Division. • Contractors working in Tukwila and hauling within Renton shall comply with City of Renton haul route hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. Please contact me if you have any question regarding this letter. I can be reached by telephone at: 425-430-7286 or via email: ihenning@rentonwa.gov Sincerely, Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Director cc: C. E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Jim Seitz, Transportation Division Bob Mahn, Transportation Division Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Todd Black, Parks Division AeacKMnvr6 SUP -tit mix 1b TUKWILA HEARING EXAMINER JVN 3 2016 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Community Development Applicant: File Number: Associated Files: Application: Location: SEPA Determination: Shoreline Environment Designation: Comprehensive Plan/ Zoning Designation: Recommendation: Public Hearing: Exhibits: King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources L 16-0017 (Project File PL 16-0014) L16-0016, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Shoreline Variance to reduce width requirements, from 18 feet to 16 feet, for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail The site is located along the south bank of the Black River and the east bank of the Green River, beginning at the north end of Fort Dent Park from Tukwila's eastern City limit, along the east edge of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the Green River Trail. Mitigated Determination of Non -significance issued by City of Renton as lead agency, on January 11, 2016. Urban Conservancy Low Density Residential and Heavy Industrial The Department of Community Development recommends approval. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the application on June 7, 2016, at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. The following exhibits were entered into the record: A. Department Staff Report dated May 25, 2016 with Attachments 1-4 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe email dated May 11, 2016 3. City of Renton letter dated May 10, 2016 4. City of Renton SEPA staff report and SEPA Determination oitimeiiktivr, � Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 2 of 7 The following persons testified at hearing: City: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner Dave Johnson, Parks Department Applicant: Jason Rich, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources Introduction The applicant, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources, seeks a Shoreline Variance from the trail width standard of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), from 18 feet (14-foot wide paved area with a two -foot shoulder on both sides), to 16 feet (12-foot wide paved area with a two -foot shoulder on both sides). Represented at the hearing were the Tukwila Department of Community Development, by Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner; and the Applicant, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources, by Jason Rich. No member of the public testified at the hearing. All references to TMC or Code refer to the Tukwila Municipal Code. After due consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. Findings of Fact 1. King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources seeks a shoreline variance to allow development of a 1.2-mile portion, Segment A, which is a portion of the planned 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The Lake to Sound trail will ultimately link Lake Washington to Puget Sound as part of a regional trail system. Segment A would connect to the Green River Trail, the Interurban Trail to the south, and to the future Cedar River Trail. The Lake to Sound project, including Segment A, is proposed to be a 12-foot-wide trail with 2-foot wide shoulders. 2. Segment A is located in the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Segment A would be located on what is currently an unimproved trail/gravel road which extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park; see Attachment 1 to the staff report. 3. The site is designated as Urban Conservancy. The purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and to restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. 4. The 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction area is divided into a buffer area and a non -buffer area. The Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer is 100 feet landward of the OHWM for leveed portions of the river, and 125 feet landward of the OHWM where no levee is present. There is a levee along the Green River, but not along the Black River edge of the project. Non -water -oriented Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 3 of 7 recreational activities are a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy Environment, both in the buffer and non -buffer areas. 5. The City of Renton has approved a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance for Segment A. 6. The portion within the City of Tukwila is subject to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program, which sets a minimum width of 18 feet for pedestrian trails, comprised of a 14-foot-wide paved area and two feet of shoulder on either side; TMC 18.44.100.C. Segment A thus requires a variance from the trail width standard in the Tukwila Master Shoreline Plan. 7. A SEPA Determination of Non -significance was issued by the City of Renton as SEPA lead agency on January 11, 2016. A public comment period for the related shoreline permits ended on May 13, 2016. Three email comments were received and are not directed specifically at the width variance, but will be considered by the City in its review of the shoreline substantial development permit. No member of the general public testified or submitted comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing on June 7, 2016. 8. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies and implementation strategies addressing the City's trails and recreational facilities. See, e.g., Goal 6.1 regarding calls for parks, recreation opportunities and open spaces close to home and/or work with interconnecting off-street trails;; Policy 6.1.8, strive for a safely -designed and maintained trail system; Policy 6.1.10, create a trail system that links significant community focal points, and links the lowland and upland trails at strategic points. The City's 2009 Walk and Roll Plan also shows Segment A as a planned future trail through Fort Dent Park. 9. The City's Shoreline Master Program is incorporated by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and addressed in Element 5 of the Plan. The Element includes goals and policies addressing recreational use and access in the shoreline, as well as implementation strategies, including the Walk and Roll Plan. 10. TMC 18.44.130.D contains the approval criteria for a shoreline variance permit. 3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 4 of 7 a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief f The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 11. TMC 18.44.130.D.5 provides: a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within any sensitive area may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property; (2) The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under TMC Section 18.44.130. D. 4., "Approval Criteria; " and (3) The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. 12. WAC 173-27-140 provides the following criteria for all development: Review criteria for all development. (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. (2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. 13. WAC 173-27-170(4) includes the following additional criteria for granting of a shoreline variance permit: Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 5 of 7 In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. 14. WAC 173-27-200 provides that: (1) After local government approval of a conditional use or variance permit, local government shall submit the permit to the department for the department's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The department shall render and transmit to local government and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. (2) The department shall review the complete file submitted by local government on conditional use and variance permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. The department shall base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a conditional use permit or variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the act and, except as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170. (3) Local government shall provide timely notification of the department's final decision to those interested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to TMC 18.104.010. Under that section, shoreline variances are Type 3 decisions. Under RCW 90.58.140 and WAC 173-27-200, the state Department of Ecology shall review a shoreline variance permit and issue a final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the permit within thirty days of submittal by local government to Ecology. 2. In order to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate that all of the criteria for a shoreline variance are met. 3. The first criterion is that strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the City's SMP. The proposed use is a reasonable use that is not prohibited by the SMP. The proposed Segment A trail would be 12 feet wide with two -foot shoulders on either Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 6 of 7 side, for a total of 16 feet. The strict application of the 18-foot trail width standard (16 feet with two -foot shoulders on each side) would result in greater impacts on existing trees and more cut and fill in the buffer zone areas. Requiring the 18-foot-wide standard at this location would also cause this segment to be substantially wider than the Green River trail (10 feet wide with two - foot shoulders on each side), and other portions of the Lake to Sound trail with which Segment A will connect. 4. The second criterion is that the hardship be specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions and the application of the SMP, not the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that because of these conditions the variance is necessary to provide the owner with the use rights and privileges permitted other properties in the vicinity and zone. 5. The design standard established for the larger regional project, the Lake to Sound trail network, is for a 12-foot wide paved trail with two -foot shoulders. Segment A will be connected with regional and local trails at this location, which are or will be narrower than the City's 18-foot width requirement. The location of Segment A is such that the narrower width is necessary in order for the trail to function as a connector with the other existing and planned trails. This criterion is met. 6. The next criterion is that the project design be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The reduced trail width and the trail's design would be compatible with other uses in the area, including other trails and recreational uses. The Comprehensive Plan and SMP encourage and contemplate trails, including Segment A. The reduction in width would not cause adverse impacts to the adjacent properties or the shoreline environment, and will likely reduce the trail's impacts. Impacts from the trail (as opposed to the variance for width) have been considered as part of the SEPA review and the shoreline substantial development approval for the trail segment. This criterion is met. 7. The next criterion is that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. The proposed variance for reduced width would not grant a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties. The width requirement applies only to recreational trails in the area, which would have an opportunity to seek variance relief if needed. 8. The variance must be the minimum necessary to afford relief. The two -foot reduction in width is needed to maintain Segment A's compatibility with the rest of the Lake to Sound trail and other trail connections, while reducing impacts such as removal of trees or clearing and grading activities within the shoreline. This criterion is met. 9. The next criterion is that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The reduced trail width is consistent with the County's design standards and, according to the applicant, would be consistent with AASHTO and WSDOT design standards for bicycle and pedestrian trails. The proposed width would be greater than the existing trail conditions at the site. No substantial detriment to the public interest would be caused by the variance. Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 7 of 7 10. Under WAC 173-27-170(4), consideration is to be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The proposed width of Segment A is part of a regional trail design for the Lake to Sound trail, and the City of Renton has already approved the proposed width of 12-feet with two -foot shoulders. Subsequent requests for similar variances related to like actions would need to meet the SMP and Code criteria. The cumulative impacts of requests for relief from trail width standards would not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment, and would remain consistent with the policies of the SMA. 11. Also under WAC 173-27-170(4), variances from the use regulations of a shoreline master program are prohibited. The variance relief requested is not from the use regulations of the Tukwila SMP, but is associated with a trail, which is a permitted use. 12. The proposal is consistent with WAC 173-27-140. The proposal is consistent with the SMA, and the SMP, and no new or expanded structure is associated with the requested variance. Decision The shoreline variance as to trail width, allowing a reduction in width from 18 feet to 16 feet, is hereby granted. Under RCW 90.58.140, the Department of Ecology shall render a final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a shoreline variance permit. Entered this 10th day of June, 2016. Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner Concerning Further Review TMC 18.44.040 provides that "Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board." rye—,,<�--,r� Y i' Y -. i 1 J L CITY OF TUKWILA l e°e pme t Department of c'omlrtun:ty Development 6300 Soiathcenter Boulevard, T kwila, IVA 98188: Telephone. (206) 431-3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-SHORE Planner: Application Complete (Date: Application Incomplete (Date: File Number: L (^ ( ) t p / Project File Number: P�/`/ Other File Number a 1< NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See 1.1.2 of the attached Permit`Narrative and Justification Report LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, ifvacant, indicate toffs). block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. See 1.1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS This n formation may he fourui on vouJ tax statement or NIVAlaps.ne0. Parcel, number 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 232304-9001, 722950-0350, 232304-9005 PROJECT VALUE (PLEASE ATTACH DOCUMENTATION): $3,000,000 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/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: Jason Rich, King County Address: 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor,: Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-277-4582 FAX � 58s . 3� i mail: jasonsich@kingcounty.gov ( Signature: CPL - Pa;s� 15 o; 10 it. ng_ Pr jccts'SI:or?mc;New Shurelinc Permit:.'.#-t t-} 2 SSDP Date: 07/17/2014 10:16 AM Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT This chapter addresses City of Tukwila Submittal Requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit including responses to the Application, Project Consistency Review, and No Net Loss. The City of Renton is the SEPA lead for this project; therefore, the application for the checklist is not included as part of this submittal. Attached is supporting documentation as follows: Appendix A —Application Checklists for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix B — Application Signature pages for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix C — SEPA Checklist Appendix D — Shoreline Site Plan and Cross Sections Appendix E — Civil Plans (including Landscape Plan —Sheets MP1 and MP6) Supporting environmental reports are provided separately. These include the Critical Areas Report (CAR), Stream Discipline Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Technical Information Report for Drainage and Floodplain, and No Effect Letter. 1.1 Application 1.1.1 Name Lake to Sound Trail 1.1.2 Brief Description of Project King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred t:o as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges (BNSF and Union Pacific) to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see 90-percent plans). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. March 2016 1 554-1521-084 1-1 Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.1.2.1 Location The location is a linear corridor from the Green River Trail in Tukwila to the west to Naches Avenue SW in Renton on the east. The trail enters Tukwila jurisdiction between two rail bridges, south of the Black River. The portion of the proposed trail in Tukwila is approximately 600 linear feet, following an existing access road (in Fort Dent Park), a well -trodden earthen pathway in the vicinity of the railroad, and maintained lawns associated with the Star Fire Soccer Complex and Fort Dent Park. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. See Figure 1-1. 1.1.2.2 Tax Lot Numbers Parcel number 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 722950-0350, 232304-9005 1.1.2.3 Project Value Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. is approximately $2,100,000. 1.1.2.4 Development Coordinator Name: Jenny Baily, Parametrix Address: 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-394-3656 Fax: 855-542-6353 Email: jbailey@parametrix.com 1-2 March 2016 1554-1521-084 MSevmpm O/ z - -9 % ce I $ 0)% > z �. z! o >, $ ƒ 0I 0EK �6 \I d0 i > zo: § Y ] i i \ ®- \ - a) - 2 to ® o• c0 o k 2 t i \ ƒ ° / ..d^ 9 J < J - , $e §e •a ` �y .; 15 .u3Gre 3 2 \ / c / J --AV 3 2 _ a 9 0 ^ / ® ® \ . oarametrix 2 e City Boundary Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A co ƒ� CI to' 0co O 2f CC • a. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.2 Project Consistency Review 1.2.1 Applicability to City of Tukwila Shoreline Policies This section is dedicated to a narrative discussion on how this project is consistent with or implements the applicable Shoreline Master Program goals and policies as found in Chapter 6 of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), Attachment A to Ordinance 2344. If not specifying the larger project, references to "project" refer to the section of the proposed trail in the City of Tukwila, not trail segments outside the Tukwila Jurisdiction. The following includes excerpts from Chapter 6 of the SMP followed by a discussion of how this project aligns with said goals or policies (response text in blue). Text from Chapter 6 of SMP Policy 5.1.2, Urban Conservancy Environment: In the Urban Conservancy Environment priority shall be given to the following: • Development that promotes vegetation conservation and enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and preservation of water quality to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter removed within the shoreline zone will be replaced as prescribed per TMC 18.44.080 requirements. • Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent use, and uses that prevent andior minimize flood damage; The project will not increase the amount of fill in the 100-year floodplain (cuts and fills are balanced, with no net fill); therefore, the project will minimize the potential for flooding. • Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control, consider impacts to public views, and allow for the safe, unobstructed passage offish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration; This project will not interfere with navigation and flood control, not impact public views, and allow for fish and wildlife passage. • Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the land and water that do not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. The trail is designed to integrate into the existing landscape with as little alteration as possible. The proposed paved trail will follow an existing dirt path and will generally follow existing contours and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and discharge locations. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The project will replant with native vegetation as prescribed in the TMC 18.44.080. • Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and when ecological impacts can be mitigated; 1-4 March 2016 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The trail also connects directly to the Green River Trail and indirectly to the Interurban Trail and Cedar River Trail. The loss of trees will be mitigated per TMC 18.44.080. 6.6Access and Recreational Use, Comprehensive Plan Goal5.6 Goal: Increase the amount and diversity of opportunities for public recreation and access to and along the river, including visual and cultural access, access to the water's edge, opportunities for small boat navigation and access, and connections to other neighborhoods, consistent with the shoreline character. The proposed trail is part of a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mule Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see 90-percent plans). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. This trail is consistent with the shoreline character. The portion of the proposed trail in the City of Tukwila connects to the existing Green River trail, is adjacent to a park (Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park), and utilizes an informal dirt trail currently utilized by pedestrians. • Policy 5.6.1: Retain and improve areas identified as important in the network of public access to the river, including cross-town connections, former railroad right-of-ways and unimproved street -end right-of-ways, historic sites, unique natural features or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. • Policy 5.6.4: Design, locate and manage public access for diverse types and variable levels of intensity in order to minimize impacts on vulnerable features of the natural environment and to minimize conflicts with private property uses. March 7m6 1554-1571-OR4 1_c Lake to Sound Trail-SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County The proposed trail will provide non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others of all ages and capabilities. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed trail is 12-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders, which is a smaller footprint than what is required under TMC 18.44.100 (A)(1), but still in compliance with regional standards given the anticipated uses and volumes of trail users. The only private property use in the project vicinity is the BNSF railroad operation. The trail would pass beneath an existing rail bridge, avoiding conflicts with this use. 1.2.2 Applicability to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44, Shoreline Overlay District Criteria The following section describes the project's consistency with Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) as it relates to the Shoreline Overlay District. If not specifying the larger project, references to "project" refer to the section of the proposed trail in the City of Tukwila, not trail segments outside the Tukwila jurisdiction. 1.2.2.1 Permitted Uses Consistency with TMC 18.44.030 — Shoreline Use Matrix The proposed project is consistent with TMC 18.44.050. Consistency with TMC 18.44.050 — Urban Conservancy The proposed project extends through an Urban Conservancy Environment. It is consistent with TMC 18.44.050 (B)(1)(d): d. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails. Consistency with Underlying Zoning The proposed project extends through property zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and Heavy Industrial (HI). Low Density Residential (LDR) [18.10.020 (3)] The proposed project is a permitted use per Low Density Residential 18.10.020 (3): 3. Public parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds, but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. Heavy Industrial (Hi) (18.10.020 (3)] The proposed project is a permitted use per Heavy Industrial (HI) 18.34.020 (37): 37. Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public), but not including amusement parks, golf courses or commercial recreation. 1-6 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.2.2.2 Development Standards Urban Conservancy Development Standards (TMC 18.44.070C1 1. Standards. The following standards apply in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environments. a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. As described above, the project is consistent with the underlying zoning. b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi family, commercial, or industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access Section. The proposed trail extends along the Black River and through Fort Dent Park, and connects to the Green River Trail, inherently providing public access. See Appendix D, which includes the site plan. Structures Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(K). 2. Setbacks and Site Configuration. a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable shoreline environment. Not applicable. The proposed activity is the construction of a trail. b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM. Not applicable. The proposed activity does not involve a fishing pier, viewing platform, or other outdoor feature providing access to the shoreline. 3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water - dependent uses and their structures, to preserve visual access to the shoreline and avoid massing of tall buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction, the maximum height for structures shall be as follows: a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer; Within the 125 foot Urban Conservancy buffer, BNSF has requested that the trail potentially be covered within 30 feet of the overhead railroad bridge to prevent debris from falling on trail users. If required, the cover will be 10 feet above the trail for vertical clearance. b. 45 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM. No structures are proposed in this area. c. Provided, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15% increase in height if the project proponent provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, March 2016 1 554-1521-0A4 1-7 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County and/or enhanced in order to obtain the 15% increase in height in accordance with TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." Not applicable. The proposed project is a trail. No building structures are proposed. 4. Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in TMC Chapter 18.60, "Board of Architectural Review," lighting for the site or development shall be designed and located so that: a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be one foot candle. b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on the river channel, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off -site illumination. c. The general grounds need not be lighted. d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan. Not applicable. The proposed trail design does not include lighting. 1.2.2.3 Vegetation and Landscaping The proposed project is consistent with the SMP's vegetation and landscaping requirements (per TMC 18.44.080). Clearing and grubbing in the Shoreline will likely occur in late spring/early summer, which will involve the removal of trees including significant trees. Please see the civil plan sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E for an understanding of trees proposed for removal and proposed landscaping and associated planting quantities. The following discusses the applicable elements of the code to this project. B. Tree Protection, Retention and Replacement. 1. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development or re -development, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part of design review, the Director of Community Development or the Board of Architectural Review may require alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river. The trail alignment was selected to follow the existing topography where feasible, and to integrate into the existing landscape. The vegetation that overhangs the Black and Green Rivers will not be removed. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. 2. To protect the ecological functions that trees and native vegetation provide to the shoreline, removal of any significant tree or native vegetation in the Shoreline Jurisdiction requires a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and is generally only allowed on sites undergoing development or re- development. This project is considered "development" and therefore is allowed to remove significant trees and native vegetation per TMC 18.44.080. 1-8 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 3. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community Development (DCD) containing the following information: a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all significant trees and all existing native vegetation. b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees required. c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to be retained for sites undergoing development or re -development. d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any sensitive areas with their buffers. e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation. f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD. g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution. Please see the civil plan sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E for an understanding of trees proposed for removal and proposed landscaping. 4. Where permitted, significant trees that are removed from the shoreline shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements shown below, up to a density of 100 trees per acre (including existing trees). The Director or Planning Commission may require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to mitigate any potential impact from the loss of this vegetation as a result of new development. Diameter* of Tree Removed Number of Replacement Proposed Number of Trees (*measured at height of 4.5 feet from the ground) Trees Required for On -Site Replacement 4-6 inches (single trunk); 2 inches (any trunk of a multi -trunk tree) 3 3 Over 6-8 inches 4 8 Over 8-20 inches 6 30 Over 20 inches 8 16 5. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. The revegetation area will be monitored during and after construction. Replaced trees that do not survive will be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. 6. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off -site tree replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off -site tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off -site location is available, the applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund. The fee shall be based on the value of the Marrh m1E I cc4-1s71-ng4 1_O Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County replacement trees and their delivery, labor for site preparation and plant installation, soil amendments, mulch, and staking supplies. This requirement is noted. 7. When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed tree(s) to a location designated by the City. If no restoration project or storage location is available at the time, the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the Transition Zone. This requirement is noted. 8. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the public. Although no wildlife snags were observed, if encountered at the time of construction, they will be preserved if they do not present a hazard. 9. Topping of trees is prohibited unless absolutely necessary to protect overhead utility lines. Topping of trees will be regulated as removal and tree replacement will be required. No trees will be topped because of this project. 10. For new development or re -development where trees are proposed for retention, tree protection zones shall be indicated on site plans and shall be established in the field prior to commencement of any construction or site Bearing activity. A minimum 4 feet high construction barrier shall be installed around significant trees and stands of native trees or vegetation to be retained. Minimum distances from the trunk for the construction barriers shall be based on the approximate age of the tree (height and canopy) as follows: a. Young trees (have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 feet per inch of trunk diameter. b. Mature trees (have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk diameter. c. Over mature trees (have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per inch of trunk diameter. The project will establish tree protection zones as described on sheet TESC1 and on Detail 1 on sheet D3 in the Civil Plan set (Appendix E). C. Landscaping. 1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation must be removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank. a. The landscaping requirements of this subsection apply for any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except: single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots. The extent of landscaping required will depend on the size of the proposed project. New development or full redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be carried out. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed per the approved tree permit, if required. 1-10 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County The proposed trail will primarily follow the existing access road (in Fort Dent Park) and a well -trodden earthen pathway in the vicinity of the railroad. The remaining portions of the trail will be constructed on maintained lawn. Existing areas disturbed by construction activities and not shown to be re -vegetated on the plans will be restored and reseeded. Trees that are removed will be replaced according to the ratios and specifications described in TMC 18.44.080. b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted, including the river bank. Existing areas disturbed by construction activities and not shown to be revegetated on the plans will be restored and reseeded with appropriate vegetation. If in an area of existing maintained lawn, the disturbed areas will be reseeded in kind. c. On properties located behind publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the buffer. This requirement is noted. d. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the slope stability of the bank will be maintained and a plan must be submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and tree protection features will be utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment. Please see construction notes on sheet MP1 of the civil plan set. e. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required. No placement of riprap or tree canopy shading the river will occur for this project in the City of Tukwila. f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such phasing is provided for by a plan approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion. Invasive vegetation removal, using the proper approach for the existing conditions, will occur in the areas of proposed plantings. g. A combination of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover's (including grasses, sedges, rushes and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004 Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification. Sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package includes a table showing the plant material list including quantity to be planted, botanical and common name, size, and spacing. i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and Landscape Association —ANLA). All plants shall be nursery grown a minimum of one year. Commercial nurseries that specialize in plants native to the Pacific Northwest will supply the plantings. Plant substitutions are subject to approval by a March 2016 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County project representative. Plantings will meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANLA). This has been included in the notes in on sheet MP1 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. j. Plant sizes in the non -buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following minimum size standards: Deciduous trees 2-inch caliper Conifers 6 — 8 foot height Shrubs 24 - inch height Groundcover/grasses 4-inch or 1 gallon container Replacement plantings will occur in the Urban Conservancy Buffer. k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2- inch in diameter. Please see planting details on sheet MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. 1. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the vegetation's long-term health and survival. This has been included in the planting notes in on the General notes to sheet MP1 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access to the water's edge. Comment noted. n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species. Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according to the approved maintenance plan. Please see response to TMC 18.44.080(6)(5). o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.8.4. and must be replanted in a timely manner, except where a long term removal and re -vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being implemented. Please see the planting density table on sheet MP1 of the civil plan set. Invasive vegetation removal, using the proper approach for the existing conditions, will occur in the areas of proposed plantings. 2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments. The River Buffer in all shoreline environments shall function, in part, as a vegetation management area to filter sediment, capture contaminants in surface water run-off, reduce the velocity of water run-off, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. a. A planting plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist shall be submitted to the City for approval that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a landscape architect or biologist may be waived by the Director for single family property owners (when 1-12 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County planting is being required as mitigation for construction of overwater structures or shoreline stabilization), if the property owner accepts technical assistance from City staff. Please see sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless site conditions would make planting unsafe. Please see sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package for planting details. c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature. Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations. Proposed plantings are primarily upland species, sited on the top of the bank. Please see sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package for planting details. d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.C.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density calculations. Plant spacing for the proposed landscaping plan follows the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080 (c)(2). Please see the table on sheetMl of the 90 percent civil plan set. e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are established. An irrigation plan is to be included as part of the planting plan. This has been included in the planting notes on sheet MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set. D. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction. 1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline ecological function. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. Topping of trees is prohibited except where absolutely necessary to avoid interference with existing utilities. No topping would occur, but it is likely pruning will occur in order to maintain clearance along the trail. 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. This has been included in the planting notes on sheet M1 of the 90 percent civil plan set. 3. Use of pesticides. a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline jurisdiction except where: (1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species; (2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest management and monitoring plan; (3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations; March 2016 1 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County (4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing by the City and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. This requirement is noted. 1.2.2.4 Public Access The project will be consistent with applicable public access requirements (per TMC 18.44.100) as follows: A. Applicability 1. Public access shall be provided on all property that abuts the Green/Duwamish River shoreline in accordance with this section as further discussed below where any of the following conditions are present: d. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands. This is a public trail project lead by King County Parks in cooperation with the City of Tukwila, City of Renton, the WSDOT, and the FHWA. B. General Standards 1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide: a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle connections between proposed development and the river's edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or other approved trail system; and As a mufti -use trail, this project will provide a safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized connection to the Green River through connectivity with the Green River Trail. b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge; and No portion of the multi -use trail in the City of Tukwila will be adjacent or near a street right of way. c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be accomplished through the use of special paving materials such as precast pavers, bomonite, changes in color or distinct and detailed scoring patterns and textures. No portion of the multi -use trail in the City of Tukwila will be adjacent or near a street right of way. 4. Approved signs indicating the public's right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public access may be approved as a condition of permit approval. The proposed multi -use trail will be clearly marked with signage as a bike and pedestrian pathway at its intersection with the Green River Trail. 5. Required access must be maintained throughout the life of the project. Access will be maintained throughout the life of the project. 1-14 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park, or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed to accommodate logical future connections. Segment A is adjacent to Fort Dent Park and will connect with the Green River Trail. As described previously, it will become part of a larger planned regional trail system. C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section 18.44.100(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows: 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage to meet the standards of a 14-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. The proposed project is requesting a variance from the size requirement as specified in TMC 18.44.100 (C) (1). The proposed project plans to construct a trail that is 12-foot wide with 2-foot shoulders on each side. As a trail in a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail system, the proposed trail width will be compatible with other sections of the trail and will comply with King County's policy for trail width on trails with an anticipated usage of greater than 2,000 users per day (2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines). 1.3 No Net Loss Checklist Responses This section is dedicated to a narrative discussion on how this project is consistent with No Net Loss as defined in the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The following includes excerpts from the No Net Loss Checklist contained in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application package followed by a discussion of how this project aligns with said goals or policies (response text in blue). 1. Describe the existing condition of the shoreline area and riverbank. For example, what plants and how much vegetation currently exist within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction; what is the condition of the shoreline (how steep are the banks, is there any erosion or slope failure, what are the soils like); is there "hard armoring" on the riverbank (for example, concrete or wooden bulkheads, metal sheet piling, rip - rap [rocks or concrete/asphalt blocks]), is there paving or are there any structures within the 200 ft. shoreline jurisdiction; are there any docks, piers, decks or other structures near or over the water; are there any above -ground or below ground utilities; etc.? [For ease of review, the above paragraph is divided into topics, see below] What plants and how much vegetation currently existing within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction? The buffer vegetation along the Black River within the project area (Station 1+00 to Station 7+65) ranges in density and width. In the area of Fort Dent Park, within approximately 10 to 30 feet of the Black River, the vegetation is dense. The understory is comprised of invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) intermixed with native shrubs. The native shrubs include willow (Salix spp.) directly adjacent to the river, arid small shrubs and trees further upslope consisting of beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Mature trees in this area include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). With the exception of an access road composed of compacted tire track, the remainder of the vegetated shoreline consists of maintained grass with a healthy population of mature trees intermixed with trees planted within 5 to 10 years. Species include Douglas fir, American Marrh 7(11A 1 ccd-1571_(1Rd Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black cottonwood, American elm (Ulmus americana), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum). Some of the trees planted within the last 5 to 10 years are stressed, dying, or dead — likely due to the drought -like conditions the region has been experiencing in recent years. The mature trees appear healthy. Vegetation in the vicinity of the railroad is mostly invasive Himalayan blackberry and bare earth. The remaining buffer is developed with playing fields, a parking lot associated with the playing fields, the existing Green River trail, and the railroad. These man-made features extend into the 125-foot buffer and dominate the remaining area within shoreline jurisdiction. The mix of vegetation offsite, along the Green River is similar to what is found directly adjacent to the Black River except a bit narrower, about 10-15 feet. The Green River trail bisects the vegetated buffer from the project site. The remaining 125-foot buffer is as described in the previous paragraph for the project site. What is the condition of the shoreline (how steep are the banks, is there any erosion or slope failure, what are the soils like)? Slopes directly adjacent to the Black River and Green River are steep, approximately 2:1. No erosion or slope failure is evident, which is likely due to the density of vegetation. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) characterizes the soils as Newberg silt loam, which is typically found in floodplains. This type of soil has good drainage. Above the banks, where the trail is proposed, the landform is relatively flat with small undulations. Is there "hard armoring" on the riverbank (for example, concrete or wooden bulkheads, metal sheet piling, rip -rap [rocks or concrete/asphalt blocks])? No hard armoring is evident along the riverbank. The Green River trail is on a levee. Is there paving or are there any structures within the 200 ft. shoreline jurisdiction? Areas of paving are located within 200 feet of the shoreline. Paved areas include the Green River Trail, and a parking lot. There is also a soccer playing field that is surfaced with field turf and an elevated rail bridge owned by BNSF. Are there any docks, piers, decks or other structures near or over the water; are there any above -ground or below ground utilities; etc.? The railroads and one utility are the only over -water structures within the project area. 2. How will your project change the existing condition of the shoreline described above? In the City of Tukwila, the project will change the existing condition of the shoreline by removing trees and constructing a paved 12-foot wide multi -use trail with 2-foot shoulders. A total of 15 trees will be removed. None of the trees along the densely vegetated riverbanks will be removed, only the trees in the grassy area. Of the 15 trees, 10 significant trees (per TMC 18.06.776) will be removed. The remaining trees are big leaf maples that are 2-3 inches at diameter breast height (DBH), not multi-trunked trees. Please see the civil plan set sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E showing trees identified for removal and areas where they will be replaced per TMC 18.44.080. 1-16 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County 3. Please respond to the questions in the following chart - A No Net Loss analysis (prepared by a qualified biologist) must be prepared if the response to any of the questions in the chart below is "yes": Will The Project: No Yes a. Alter/remove vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction? X b. Alter the river bank (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring etc.)? X c. Add fill in the shoreline jurisdiction? X d. Discharge new stormwater to the river? X e. Store or use hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction? X f. Construct an in- or over -water structure? X g. Increase impervious surface in the shoreline jurisdiction? X 4. The way to achieve no net loss of ecological function is to mitigate the loss through one or a combination of the mitigation sequencing steps identified below. If preparing a No Net Loss analysis, please discuss how your project addresses the following mitigation sequencing steps (TMC 18.44.070 H.3.): a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing critical area and buffer impacts to the greatest extent feasible with no permanent or temporary impacts to the Black or Green Rivers anticipated. The trail alignment was selected to follow the existing topography where feasible, and to integrate into the existing landscape. The proposed paved trail will largely follow an existing dirt path and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and infiltration. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed project will adhere to the applicable tree protection, retention, and replacement ratios as described in TMC 18.44.080 including the installation of native plantings. To ensure the plantings are successful, the project will comply with applicable vegetation management requirements specified in TMC 18.44.080 (D). All temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. King County will apply the following additional strategies to critical area and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: • Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground -disturbing activities. March 2016 1 554-1521-084 1-17 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL -SEGMENT A PREPARED FOR: King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division 201 South Jackson Street, MS KSC-TR-0317 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Tom Minichillo, PhD 206.296.8085 PREPARED BY: ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Trish Fernandez 206.801.2805 July 2011 ICF INTERNATIONAL Fernandez, Trish, Abramowitz, Alan, and Reed, Patrick. 2011. Cultural Resources Survey Report, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A. July. (ICF 00865.10) Seattle, WA. Prepared for King County Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations iv Page Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 Project Description 1-1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A 1-1 Project Background 1-3 Area of Potential Effects 1-3 Regulatory Context 1-3 Federal 1-3 Personnel 1-7 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting 2-1 Environmental Setting 2-1 Geologic Background 2-1 Paleoenvironment 2-2 Flora and Fauna 2-2 Cultural Setting 2-3 Precontact 2-3 Period I (13,000 to 6,000 BP) 2-3 Period II (6,000 to 2,500 BP) 2-4 Period III (2,500 to 250 BP) 2-4 Ethnography 2-5 Historic Context 2-6 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation 3-1 Literature Review 3-1 Records Search 3-1 Consultation 3-2 Chapter 4 Research Design 4-1 Objectives and Expectations 4-1 Precontact Site 45KI438 4-1 Research Methods 4-2 Archaeological Investigations 4-2 Cultural Resources Survey Report Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A 1 ICF 00865.10 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Contents Historic Resources Survey 4-4 Chapter 5 Results 5-1 Stratigraphic Analysis 5-1 Archaeological Investigations 5-1 Pedestrian Survey 5-1 Subsurface Investigations 5-2 Historic Resources Survey 5-2 National Register of Historic Places Evaluation 5-5 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 6-1 Conclusions 6-1 Assessment of Effect 6-1 Recommendations 6-1 Chapter 7 References Cited 7-1 Appendix A Correspondence Appendix B Photo Log Appendix C Shovel Test Descriptions Appendix D Historic Property Inventory Forms Cultural Resources Survey Report July 2011 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A II ICF 00865.10 King County Department of Transportation Contents Tables Page Table 1. Cultural Resources Surveys Conducted in and within 1 Mile of the APE 3-1 Table 2. Previously Inventoried Historic Resources 3-2 Figures Page Figure 1. Project Location 1-2 Figure 2. Area of Potential Effects 1-5 Figure 3. Site 45KI458A Boundary 4-3 Figure 4. Shovel Test Locations 4-5 Figure 5. Built Environment Resources 5-3 Cultural Resources Survey Report July 2011 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A ��� ICF 00865.10 King County Department of Transportation Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations APE area of potential effects BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BP before present CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeters CVR crypto-volcanic rock DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FHWA Federal Highway Administration GPS global positioning system I-405 Interstate 405 1-5 Interstate 5 ICF ICF International MOA memorandum of agreement NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer STP shovel test probe WAC Washington Administrative Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Cultural Resources Survey Report July 2011 IV Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A ICF 00865.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Project Description King County is proposing to develop the Lake to Sound Trail, which would connect the southernmost point of Lake Washington to Puget Sound through the cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac, Burien, and Des Moines, Washington. The trail would link a number of existing trails, including the Cedar River Trail, the Green River Trail, the Westside Trail, and the Des Moines Creek Trail, meandering through regional recreational, residential, retail, and employment areas. The vision is to create a viable alternative to driving that encourages physical activity, provides a safe route for children to travel to and from school, connects to other trails and a variety of facilities, and creates a resource that brings the community together. The Lake to Sound Trail project is a joint partnership between the cities stated above and King County and is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting King County with FHWA funding and acting on behalf of FHWA as the lead federal agency. Regulatory compliance for the project is managed by the King County Roads Service Division. FHWA funding mandates that the project be conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of funded or approved undertakings that have the potential to affect any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). ICF International (ICF) conducted a cultural resources survey for the project to assist King County in fulfilling these requirements. The study comprises both an archaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A The proposed Lake to Sound Trail system consists of 17 miles of regional trail for use as a multi- purpose, non -motorized route. Although many of the 17 miles of the trail have been constructed, Segment A has not. Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail is located in the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Figure 1) along the south side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. The easternmost point begins at the cul-de-sac of Naches Avenue Southwest in Renton, and passes through the Black River riparian forest. Crossing Oakesdale Road, the westernmost point of this segment is at Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. The total length of Segment A is approximately 1 mile. Cultural Resources Survey Report 1_1 July 2011 ICF Area of Potential Effects Meters 1,800 Source: Des Moines 47122-03 and Renton 47122-D2 (7.5' Figure 1 Project Location King County Department of Transportation Chapter 1. Introduction Project Background Area of Potential Effects The area of potential effects (APE) for a project is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties (i.e., archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and/or built environment resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The APE for Segment A is located along an access road currently used as a pedestrian footpath. The easternmost extent of the APE is the end of the cul-de-sac of Naches Avenue Southwest in the city of Renton. The westernmost extent is located near Fort Dent Park in the city of Tukwila. The APE is one mile long. The width of the APE includes an 18-foot project corridor (Figure 2). The 18-foot project corridor (the construction footprint) is defined as the area within which potential archaeological deposits could be affected (Figure 2). This boundary includes all potential vertical and horizontal ground disturbance associated with the project. The vertical extent of the construction footprint boundary is from the level of existing ground surface to 3 feet below ground surface, which allows for the maximum extent of potential subsurface ground disturbance. Regulatory Context Federal Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act As a result of FHWA funding, the project must be conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of funded or approved undertakings that have the potential to impact any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP and gives the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), affected tribes, and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the project. Although compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, others can undertake the work necessary to comply. The Section 106 process is codified in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 and consists of the following steps. 1. Initiate the process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consulting with the SHPO, identifying and consulting with interested parties, and identifying points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions. 2. Identify cultural resources and evaluate them for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assess effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Consult with the SHPO and interested parties regarding any adverse effects on historic properties; and, if necessary, develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of these properties (e.g., a memorandum of agreement [MOA]). 5. Proceed in accordance with the project MOA, if an MOA is developed. Cultural Resources Survey Report 1-g July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 1. Introduction National Register of Historic Places Eligibility First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the NRHP was established by the NHPA as "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments; private groups; and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. Two components are factored into determining if a property meets NRHP eligibility: significance criteria and integrity. Significance Criteria According to NRHP guidelines, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that meet any of the following criteria: A. A property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. A property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. A property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. D. A property yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Ordinarily, birthplaces, cemeteries, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily commemorative in nature are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. Integrity The NRHP requires that a resource not only meet one of the identified significance criteria, but must also possess integrity, which is the ability of a property to convey historical significance. The evaluation of a resource's integrity must be grounded in an understanding of that resource's physical characteristics and how those characteristics relate to its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define the integrity of a property: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Determining Adverse Effects The assessment of effects on historic properties is codified in 36 CFR 800.5. An adverse effect on a historic property is present when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Cultural Resources Survey Report 1-4 July 2011 fz King County Department of Transportation Chapter 1. Introduction Personnel Trish Fernandez, MA, served as Project Manager and Field Director for this cultural resources survey. Tait Elder, MA, served as Principal Investigator for archaeology; Christopher Hetzel, MA, served as Principal Investigator for the built environment. Archaeological subsurface surface was conducted by Martin Rosen, MA, Alan Abramowitz, MA, and Patrick Reed. Primary authors of this report were Alan Abramowitz and Patrick Reed. Peer review was conducted by Tait Elder and Christopher Hetzel. Erica Hall assisted with mapping and graphics. Trish Fernandez served as primary content editor for the report and Kristen Lundstrom provided technical editing and production services. Cultural Resources Survey Report 1-7 July 2011 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within the Puget Sound lowlands (or Puget Sound basin), just west of the Cascade Mountains, east of Puget Sound and south of Lake Washington. The lowlands provide easy access to a variety of productive terrestrial, riverine, and marine environments from the cold, nutrient -rich waters of Puget Sound, to the freshwater rivers and lakes in the surrounding valleys and forested Cascade Foothills. The Puget Sound lowlands also have lower precipitation rates and higher seasonal temperature ranges than those of the Pacific coast. The region has a maritime climate, which consists of cool, wet winters and mild summers. Annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches per year, with the majority of this occurring between October and March (Kruckeberg 1995). Geologic Background The modern topography of the Puget Sound basin is primarily the result of three forces: • surface scouring and moraine formation caused by the most recent glacial advance, known as the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation, which took place in the Puget Sound between 18,750 and 16,950 years before present (BP) (Booth and Goldstein 1994; Porter and Swanson 1998); • deposition of glacial sediments caused by glacial retreat between 16,950 and 16,400 BP (Booth and Goldstein 1994; Booth et al. 2009; Porter and Swanson 1998); and • post -glacial infilling of valleys and recessional meltwater channels (Troost and Booth 2008:13- 14). During the Vashon stade, the APE was covered with glacial ice from 17,400 BP to around 16,400 BP. As glacial ice advanced into the Puget Sound, glacial melt and streamwater accumulated against the southern margins of the continental ice sheet, creating a series of meltwater lakes, which drained to the Chehalis River through a network of spillways located around Olympia. As glacial ice began to recede, but still blocked the Strait of Juan de Fuca, these glacial lakes enlarged. One such lake, Glacial Lake Russell, enlarged northward as the glaciers retreated, and combined with other lakes as it expanded. At its maximum extent, Glacial Lake Russell covered much of the lowland surface between present-day Olympia and Whidbey Island, with relict shorelines extending as much as 330 feet above modern sea level in the Seattle area (Troost and Booth 2008:13). Once glacial ice receded north of the Olympic Peninsula, meltwater began to drain into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and mixed with rapidly incurring marine water. Marine water backfilled the lowland areas previously occupied by proglacial lakes, including the location of the present-day Duwamish Valley (Diether et al. 1995). The Duwamish Valley continued to be a marine embayment until approximately 5,700 BP. A partial collapse of the northeastern portion of Mount Rainier's composite crater occurred, forming a Cultural Resources Survey Report 7-1 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting mudflow, or lahar, as the debris from this collapse combined with additional down -slope sediments, rock debris, glacial ice, and streamwater. This mudflow, termed the "Osceola mudflow," proceeded down the Duwamish Valley and overrode the ancient Duwamish River delta just south of the city of Auburn, with mudflow deposits reaching as far north as the city of Kent. The availability of a new sediment source, provided by the Osceola mudflow and subsequent smaller mudflows in the Duwamish River Valley, resulted in rapid infilling of the valley as the river delta prograded, or grew outward (Dragovich et al. 1994), reaching Tukwila approximately 2,200 BP (Zehfuss et al. 2003:214). Geologic maps of the area indicate the ground surface consists of primarily sand, silts, and clays accumulated on the floodplain of the Green and Black rivers within the Duwamish Valley since the Osceola mudflow. Historic modification, channelization, and flood control of the river systems in the early 1900s stopped sediment deposition in the APE (Palmer 1997). Recent cultural modification to the sediments in the APE includes fill importation, topsoil removal, commercial and urban development, and utility trench excavations. Paleoenvironment As the continental and alpine glaciers began to recede during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, climatic fluctuations occurred in the Pacific Northwest, indicated by variations in vegetation communities during this period. Analysis of charcoal and pollen cores from western Oregon and the lower Columbia River Valley indicate a regional warming trend between 14,850 and 13,000 BP, indicated by a shift from pine/spruce-dominated parkland to a warmer Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii)/fir-dominated forest. Between 13,000 and 11,000 BP, an increase in pine pollen and a higher frequency of charcoal in the archaeological record indicate either greater seasonality or a short-term cooling event, which could be related to the Younger Dryas cooling event (Grigg and Whitlock 1998; Walsh et al. 2008) in the early Holocene. The return of Douglas fir pollen after 11,000 BP indicates the return of warm, dry conditions (Grigg and Whitlock 1998). In the lower Columbia River Valley; however, dry conditions continued, causing a shift from a fir -dominated forest to an oak -dominated savannah. More recently, between 5,400 BP and the present, the climate transitioned to increasingly wet winters and dry summers, indicated by decreased fire frequency (Walsh et al. 2008). Within the Puget Sound basin, regional vegetation has shifted from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and red alder (Alnus rubra) just after the Pleistocene to Douglas fir - dominated forests by the early Holocene. Since the early Holocene, cedar and hemlock have become increasingly prevalent in the region (Hansen 1941; Barnosky 1985). Flora and Fauna The APE is located within the Puget Sound area subtype western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone. Softwoods, such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), western hemlock, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region, while hardwoods, such as red alder and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally subordinate and found near water courses or riparian habitats. Garry oak (Quercusgarryana) groves are found in lower elevations. In some areas, stands of pines (Pinus spp.) are major forest constituents, along with Douglas fir (Franklin and Dyrness 1988:72). Understory shrubs with potential food and resource value within the western hemlock zone include swordfern (Polystichum muritum); bracken fern; Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium); vine maple (Acer circinatum); huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.); Cultural Resources Survey Report I =4c to cnitnrl Trmil—Ccamon4 A 2-2 July 2011 irc nnucc In King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting blackberry (Rosaceae spp.); ocean spray (Holodiscu discolor); salal (Gaultheria shallon); blueberries and huckleberries (Vaccinium sp.); blackberry, salmonberry, and thimbleberry (Rubus sp.); wapato (Sagittaria latifolia); and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Geophytes, such as common camas (Camassia quamash) and tiger lily (Lilium columbianum) were collected from prairie environments when available (Pojar and Mackinnon 1994; Gunther 1945). Terrestrial faunal resources in the region include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), cougar (Puma concolor), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), squirrels (Scirius sp.), muskrat (Ondatra sp.), and raccoon (Procyonlotor) (Dalquest 1948). Cultural Setting Precontact Precontact cultural chronologies of the Pacific Northwest and the Puget Sound area have been developed by numerous archaeologists (Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Greengo and Houston 1970; Kidd 1964; Matson and Coupland 1995; Nelson 1990). The cultural chronology summarized in this section divides precontact cultural sequences into multiple phases or periods, which include the time from about 13,000 to 225 BP (approximately when Euroamerican contact began). Phases or periods are usually defined by patterns in land use, subsistence, and tool types, and delineated by changes in these patterns. Local chronologies tend to follow similar broad patterns; however, they rarely have congruent phase or period delineations. Cultural chronologies provide a useful framework for analysis but do not necessarily reflect tribal views of history, cultural boundaries, affiliations, and time. A brief summary of the phases is provided below, based on the broad units developed by Blukis Onat et al. (2001). Period I (13,000 to 6,000 BP) Although a few sites in Washington State are clearly of an early Period I age and many sites from the later portion of Period I have been identified none have been recorded in or near the APE. Traditionally, it has been thought that the first people in North America arrived by crossing the Bering Strait or following the Late Pleistocene coastline along the Pacific Ocean some time prior to 10,000 BP. The first recognized cultural assemblage on the American continent is referred to as the Clovis, dated between 12,800 and 12,500 BP in other regions of North America. Clovis is identified by a distinct type of large -fluted biface and the assemblage includes an extensive bone technology and, on the west coast of North America, a wide but sparse distribution of sites (Ames and Maschner 1999:65). Based on this assemblage, it is hypothesized that those who created the Clovis assemblage were highly mobile terrestrial mammal hunters (Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1991; Waguespack and Surovell 2003). After the disappearance of the Clovis assemblage (c. 12,500 BP), sites in this period are characterized by a pattern of generalized resource use (terrestrial and aquatic resources), cobble and cobble flake tools, the emergence of microblade technology in some areas, leaf -shaped bifaces, and a wide spatial distribution in multiple environments (Ames and Maschner 1999). In the Pacific Northwest, these post -Clovis sites are uncommon along the coast, although it is likely that some did exist. It is more likely that most of the nearshore, littoral Period I sites have been submerged, Cultural Resources Survey Report 2-1 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting eroded, or deeply buried as a result of rapid worldwide, eustatic sea level rise since the end of the Pleistocene epoch and valleys infilling with sediment since the early Holocene. Period II (6,000 to 2,500 BP) Between 6,400 and 3,800 BP, sea levels began to stabilize. As a result of this stabilization, many of the area's river outlets began to develop habitats similar to modern estuaries. This estuary formation and subsequent salmon colonization has been cited as the driving force behind socioeconomic development in the Pacific Northwest (Fladmark 1975).However, well-known Northwest Coast traits such as multifamily houses and ascribed status are not present in this time period. Trade networks become evident at this time with raw material from the Cascade foothills, northern Puget Sound, and the plateau being exchanged through various intermediaries. Large shell middens appear at this time potentially indicating resource specification and increased sedentism, although earlier presence of such shell middens is probably masked by fluctuations in sea level. Artifact assemblages are dominated by bone tools, and may be a reflection of the better preservation conditions provided by shell middens (Linse 1992). Increased frequency of ground -stone tools at sites from this time period indicates an increased time investment in the creation of technology. Period II is represented regionally by the assemblage recovered from a prehistoric village site (stuwe'yuqw) located along the Tolt River in eastern King County. This assemblage has helped to define what is called the Tolt Phase (c. 7,100 to 3,600 BP), and primarily includes components classified as part of the Olcott or Cascade traditions, which are defined as basic stone -tool -reduction technologies such as crypto-volcanic rock (CVR) cobble core/flake reduction (Blukis Onat et al. 2001). Cascade sites are recognized by the leaf -shaped Cascade points, which have been found across western Washington and have been dated to the last 8,000 years in various archaeological contexts. The relationship between Olcott and Cascade is unclear —they may be contemporaneous or sequential. More archaeological investigation in the region is needed before the relationship can be determined. Period III (2,500 to 250 BP) The cultural traits recognized as typical of the Northwest Coast appeared during this time period, such as a salmon -based subsistence economy and ascribed status. Continued adaptive strategies, specialized economic activities, complex social structure, and winter village occupations were also present during this period. Smaller summer camps and resource procurement sites supported a dispersed population that then gathered at the large, semi -permanent winter village (Suttles and Lane 1990:485). Villages, base camps, and activity areas associated with this period have been recorded on the Enumclaw Plateau (Hedlund 1973, 1976, 1983). Analysis of faunal materials from numerous coastal and riverine sites in the south-central Pacific Northwest indicates that salmon remained an important, consistently exploited resource in the region (Butler and Campbell 2004). There is a sharp increase in warfare on a regional scale that is coupled with a peak regional population c. 1,000 BP (Ames and Maschner 1999). Burial customs were highly variable during this period as well. One archaeological site, (45KI438 or the White Lake site) dates to this period; it is located in the APE and may support this idea. The White Lake site consists of a multiple occupation prehistoric shell midden. The site is in the vicinity of an ethnographically known Duwamish village called Sgoa'lgo Cultural Resources Survey Report I aka to fni Ind Trail—faamant A 2-4 July 2011 irc nnOac 1n King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting and dates from 500 to 150 BP (Waterman c. 1920; Duwamish et al. Tribes of Indians v The United States of America as cited in Lewarch et al. 1996:3-14). Ethnography The vicinity of the APE is ethnographically associated with the Coast Salish people, specifically the Lushootseed-speaking ancestors of today's Duwamish (Castile 1985; Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). At the time of European contact, the Duwamish people associated themselves with major water sources and villages. Europeans later ascribed tribal designations onto village groups with similar cultural and economic patterns or geographic proximity (Smith 1964). Some of the Duwamish reside on the Muckleshoot reservation, along with the descendents from groups calling themselves St'kamish, Yilalkoamish, Skopamish, Smulkamish, Tkwakwamish, Snoqualmie, and Suquamish, while others are affiliated with the Duwamish tribe. According to Hall (1983:2), the typical main winter village was located at the mouth of a river. The land upstream was used for hunting and gathering, while the river itself provided fish and shellfish. Villages were linked through marriage between leading families and participation in major ceremonies (Suttles and Lane 1990:494). Villages usually included two to four longhouses made of cedar planks with gabled roofs. The interior housed the hearth, sleeping areas, and food storage. Hedlund (1973) also noted the use of sweat lodges, located near streams, with exterior fires from which hot stones were transported into the lodge and doused with water to create steam. Subsistence was based on exploiting seasonally available resources. Temporary camps, occupied for a few days to a month, were set up to gather and process resources such as wild game, roots, bulbs, berries, salmon, and shellfish. Temporary hunting and gathering camps used lean-tos, tipi-like structures, or mat houses for protection from the elements (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). Food that could be dried and stored, such as salmon and camas, were stored at the winter village in the long houses. Much of the cooking was done in pit ovens or by placing fire -heated rocks into baskets to boil the contents (Hedlund 1973). Trade with neighboring groups brought additional food stores and raw material for basic and prestigious goods. Basketry and wood items formed the base of much of the cultural material used by the Salish; however, these materials rarely survive in the archaeological record. Lithic (stone) artifacts are most commonly found in precontact contexts. Lithic tools are commonly used to make tools of organic material (such as bone or wood) or process food, hides, and other organic materials. Expedient lithic tools (such as used flakes) rarely receive much mention because of their lack of temporal patterning or functional trends, but these expedient tools are more likely to be found in archaeological contexts than baskets or projectile points. Multiple villages were once located in the immediate vicinity of the APE, specifically around the confluence of the Black River and Green River (formerly the White River), where they joined to become the Duwamish River. These rivers served as the primary transportation corridors, connecting Elliot Bay, Lake Washington, and lands to the south. This confluence and the (now -filled) shallow lake 400 feet to the southeast provided abundant food and medicinal resources. Large steelhead and salmon runs passed through this confluence. The marshy waters of White Lake, as the settlers named it, were an optimal habitat for wapato cultivation. The Duwamish village Sgoa'Igo (meaning "the meeting of two rivers") mentioned above, occupied the land southeast of the confluence and is the village nearest to the APE (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-15). Cultural Resources Survey Report 7-S July 2011 King County Department of lransportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting This winter village reportedly included two houses but was not mentioned in the 1862 United States Surveyor General survey notes (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-16). Historic Context Exploration In the 1830s, employees of the Hudson's Bay Company were likely the first explorers to visit White Lake and the Duwamish River confluence. Although trade relationships with local Native American tribes introduced Euroamerican goods, these fur traders were not interested in settlement or changing native lifeways (Cole and Darling 1990:119). The settlement of the Duwamish River Valley began following Colonel Isaac Ebey's reconnaissance of Puget Sound, the Duwamish River, and Lake Washington. After a brief tenure of gold -mining in California, Isaac Ebey (who earned his Colonel title after the 1855 Indian War) traveled north and reached Puget Sound in early 1850. Later that year, the Oregon Spectator published one of his letters that discussed the beauty and economic potential of the Duwamish River Valley. His descriptions of the area inspired settlers to move into Puget Sound (Lange 2000; Lewarch et al. 1996:3-29). Early Settlement Like the Duwamish residents that preceded them, the first Euroamerican settlers in the 1850s to 1870s established their homesteads and Donation Land Claims along the rivers (Courtois et al. 1999:135; Bean 1985). The rivers granted settlers access to Seattle, which was a couple days by boat up the Duwamish River. The first settlers were Joseph and Stephen Foster, who, in 1853 claimed lands west of the Duwamish and Black River confluence. The brothers used their land to produce timber, dairy farm, and other agricultural pursuits. The next settler was Henry Tobin, who claimed land and established a sawmill near the confluence of the Black and Cedar rivers. (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-29) These early settlers were building homes and new lives at the same time the local Native American tribes were being relocated to reservations, following the Treaty of Point Elliot in 1855. The Duwamish who lived along the White and Green rivers were ordered to relocate to the Port Madison Indian Reservation with the Suquamish (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-13). The 1855-1856 Indian Wars were ignited by the tribes to the south (upriver) over the poor terms of the treaty and the lack of reservations near their traditional territories. In an effort to defend the land claims and homesteads, the U.S. Army built a series of blockhouses along the Duwamish starting near Seattle's Pioneer Square (Courtois et al. 1999:135). One of these blockhouses was Fort Dent, located in what is now Fort Dent Park, south of the Black River and Green River confluence. Built in 1856, this was a strategic location that benefited from its ability to observe and sometimes control river transportation (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-16-3-18) Agriculture The choice by early settlers to live along the riverbeds was partially influenced by the rich agricultural potential of the Duwamish River Valley. The soil was good for growing hops, hay, and produce (Stein 1999). A variety of crops and livestock products were available, and by the 1860s this area was a "burgeoning center of commerce" (Courtois et al. 1999:135). By the 1910s and 1920s, the Duwamish River Valley was a hub of dairy farming. Many of the agricultural products were sold in Seattle in the early twentieth century. Cultural Resources Survey Report I aka to Cnnnri Trail—Coomont A 2-6 July 2011 arc nnccc �n King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting Two families that played a large role in the dairy industry, the Nelsons and the Monsters, had homesteads near the APE. Brothers Fred and James Nelson homesteaded in the vicinity of the APE c. 1900. Fred Nelson developed a large, successful dairy farm and lived on the property until his death in the 1960s (Wissel 1978a). The Monster family homesteaded property near the Black River Junction in the 1880s. Chris Monster established a farm and a dairy east of the Duwamish River along what is now Beacon Coal Mine Road South. He transported his agricultural goods to Seattle by canoe and barge. His son John Monster inherited the farm and built a new home on the property in 1917 and expanded the dairy operation. The John Monster house still stands at 13710 Beacon Coal Mine Road South. (Wissel 1978b) Transportation The rivers were the primary mode of transportation for the Duwamish and early settlers. In the 1800s, riverboats carried produce, coal from local mines, livestock, and people between Seattle and Auburn. Roads were not well developed until the turn of the century. The first railroad in the area was the Seattle -Walla Walla Railroad, constructed in 1875. Built with the funding and labor of Seattle citizens, its primary purpose was to transport coal from mines in the vicinity of the city of Renton to Seattle. The railroad ran from Renton north along the north bank of the Black River, turned west at the Black River and Duwamish River confluence, then through the Duwamish River Valley along the existing BNSF right-of-way to Seattle. The Northern Pacific Railway purchased this railroad in 1880 and changed its name to the Columbia and Puget Sound Railway (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-30). Three years later, the Northern Pacific Railway built an additional railroad line to connect its transcontinental system with Seattle. This line ran south from the Black River Junction along the existing BNSF right-of-way to the city of Auburn. An original railroad bridge across the Black River was presumably constructed at this time. A high berm consisting of gravel and rock ballast was constructed to support the railroad tracks above the level of potential flooding, and the line passed through the former bed of White Lake just south of the overcrossing. The Seattle -to -Auburn railroad line eventually became known as the Orphan Road because there were only one or two daily trains on the route. The limited runs were reportedly the result of the Northern Pacific Railway's preference to provide service to Tacoma rather than Seattle (Lewarch et al. 1996). The Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway constructed an electric -powered railroad line to the west and parallel to the Northern Pacific Railway's orphan line beginning in 1905. The two bridges in the APE were likely constructed as part of this endeavor, replacing the older 1895 railroad bridge in this location. A third line, a branch of the Milwaukee Road, was constructed east of the Northern Pacific Railway line in 1907, crossing the Black River via a third railroad bridge (Lewarch et al. 1996). This third bridge was replaced in 2010 by the existing railroad bridge located immediately east of bridges in the APE (Hale 2011). A second wave of development occurred in the early twentieth century, influenced strongly by the available mode(s) of transportation. In 1902, the Puget Sound Electric Railway established service between Seattle and Tacoma via the Duwamish River Valley. The train could reach speeds up to 60 miles per hour, which was an improvement over the multi -day boat trips to Seattle and back (Stein 1999). The route of the railway approximated what is now Interurban Avenue South in the vicinity of the APE, along the west side of the Duwamish River. Cultural Resources Survey Report 2-7 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting There were initially only three interurban stations in the area —the Duwamish, Foster, and Renton Junction stations. Establishment of the rail line was associated with speculative real estate ventures in the highlands along its route and significantly influenced the creation of sizable residential housing tracts in the valley, which primarily consisted of farms and scattered rural communities at the time. One of these tracts was the Hillman's Seattle Garden Tract, platted by Seattle developer Clarence D. Hillman. A speculative development, Hillman established the new Garden Station stop on the interurban streetcar line in 1904 to service the new residential community. This stop was located northwest of the APE, along what is now Interurban Avenue South. A post office was constructed adjacent to the interurban stop that same year. The stop was later renamed Tukwila Station with the construction of a small depot in 1906 (Bean 1985; DAHP 42310 n.d.) and eventually became the center of the community of Tukwila. Tukwila The city of Tukwiila was incorporated on June 8,1908, replacing its previous Garden Station designation. The name was chosen through a local contest run by Joel Shoemaker, who became the city's first mayor. Tuck-wil-la meant "land where the hazelnuts grow" in Chinook, a trade language developed in the Pacific Northwest (Wissel 1978c). Tukwila's initial development was centered on the interurban line, which provided residents with an easy commute to and from downtown Seattle. In 1928, however, the interurban streetcar line was removed and development in Tukwila shifted westward with the construction of Pacific Highway South (State Route 99), marking the growth of the automobile as the preferred mode of transportation (Stein 1999). Development in the area was further influenced by the later construction of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 405 (1-405). Over the years, Tukwila grew into a residential suburb of Seattle through a series of annexations. Fort Dent Park was developed in 1973 adjacent to the APE. Construction of the park involved filling White Lake and leveling the land for soccer fields and recreation areas (Stein 2003). In 2002 ownership of the park was transferred from King County to the City of Tukwila. Cultural Resources Survey Report 1 mien to 1Z, i..d Trn il_fonmcAt A 2-8 July 2011 ICF lf1AAC 1f1 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation Literature Review Records Search A literature search of existing data began with a review of King County's cultural resource database by Dr. Tom Minichillo, King County archaeologist. ICF conducted an additional search of the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD). The goal of these searches was to identify previously recorded archaeological, historic, and ethnographic resources within 1 mile of the APE. A summary of these cultural resource studies is provided in Table 1. The inventoried historic resources are listed in Table 2. Table 1. Cultural Resources Surveys Conducted in and within 1 Mile of the APE Cultural NADB No. Authors/Year Report Title Description Resources Chatters 1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadid Site, 45KI51, King County, Washington Data recovery excavation within 1 mile east of APE NRHP eligible cultural resources and human remains identified 1340261 Forsman et al. 1994 Final Report Seattle Tacoma Commuter Rail Project Cultural Resource Overview Archaeological record search and field reconnaissance within 1 mile west of APE None 1334688 Lewarch et al. 1996 King County Department of Natural Resources Water Pollution Control Division Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project Allentown Site (45KI431) and White Lake Site (45KI438 and 45KI438A) Data Recovery Data recovery excavation and construction monitoring. Portions located within APE and 1 mile northwest of APE Allentown Site and White Lake Site evaluated as NRHP eligible, located outside of APE 1340875 Nelson et al. 1996 Report on the Cultural Resources Inventory Completed for the Proposed Worldcom Seattle to Salt Lake City Fiber Optic Line Part 4 Washington Archaeological record search and pedestrian survey Columbia and Puget Sound Railway (NRHP eligible) Cultural Resources Survey Report A-1 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 3. Literature Review and Consultation NADB No. Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources 1339760 Robbins et al. 1996 1339836 Courtois et al. 1999 1340277 Ellis et al. 2000 Rinck 2008 Cultural Resource Monitoring Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project Southern Transfer/Interurban Project Construction monitoring located 1 mile west/northwest of APE Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Technical Report Archaeological Monitoring at Three Locations for the Level 3 Construction Project From the Lewis River to Seattle Non-NRHP-eligible debris observed at nine construction locations Records search, archaeological survey, historic resources survey within APE Construction monitoring 1 mile west of APE Field Reconnaissance for the Starfire Sports Soccer Field Expansion, King County, Washington Auger testing within 1 mile southeast of APE None None None NADB = National Archaeological Database; SR = State Route Table 2. Previiously Inventoried Historic Resources Common Name Address Location Relative to APE BNSF Railroad Fort Dent Blockhouse White Lake Site Bernard Kassner Residence Franz Henke Residence Fred Nelson House Tukwila Grade School Joel Shoemaker House N/A Fort Dent Park N/A 14406 59th Avenue South, Tukwila 14222 58th Avenue South, Tukwila 15031 Monster Road 14475 59th Avenue South, Tukwila 14243 58th Avenue South In Adjacent In Adjacent Adjacent Adjacent Adjacent Adjacent Consultation On September 2, 2010, King County initiated Section 106 of the NHPA process by providing the project scope and APE to WSDOT. WSDOT, under Section 106, commenced consultation, by letter, sent to DAHP, Snoqualmie Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Yakama Nation, Muckleshoot Tribe and Squaxin Island Tribe, on September 15, 2010. The WSDOT letters included detailed project information and requested comments on the APE, and the proposed undertaking. Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix A. DAHP responded by letter, concurring with the definition of the APE, on September 28, 2010. Cultural Resources Survey Report I aka to Sniind Trail—Spompnt A 3-2 July 2011 Inc nnaac to Chapter 4 Research Design Objectives and Expectations The proposed project is located within the Duwamish Valley where the Black and Green rivers come together to form the Duwamish River. As would be expected in such an environment, multiple precontact sites have been recorded within a 1-mile radius of the APE. One NRHP-listed site, 45KI438, has been mapped within the APE. The environment and the presence of multiple sites in the vicinity suggest that encountering cultural resources in the APE is highly likely. The archaeological methods presented in this chapter were designed to determine whether buried cultural deposits are located in the APE that could be affected by the proposed project. Precontact Site 45KI438 The White Lake site is located on the south bank of the Black River at its confluence with the Green River. Comprising two loci (45KI438 and 45KI438A), it is listed in the NRHP under criterion D for its important information to prehistory (Lewarch 1995). Documentation of the site consists of the NRHP nomination form (Lewarch 1995), a construction monitoring report (Robbins et al. 1996), a data recovery report (Lewarch et al. 1996), and a survey report (Rinck 2008). Lewarch (et al. 1996) states that the constituents of the archaeological assemblage from this site indicate food was gathered nearby for immediate consumption and that the site was occupied during summer, fall, and perhaps winter. Based on ethnohistoric and archaeological data, Lewarch (Lewarch et al. 1996) also suggests the White Lake site is affiliated with the Duwamish winter village Spa 'No, located on the south bank of the Black River. The White Lake site data sets provide necessary information in developing an understanding of the hunter -gather -fisher settlement subsistence pattern in the Green River-Duwamish Valley. Coupled with other archaeological and ethnohistoric data for the Green River-Duwamish Valley, the site is integral in developing a detailed model of the complex subsistence and settlement patterns for the last 500 years. 45KI438 (Southern Locus) The southern locus of the site (45KI438) was identified in June 1994 during pipeline construction monitoring, in Fort Dent Park, (Robbins et al. 1996). The cultural deposits, described as discrete thin lenses, of 45KI438 had a limited horizontal extent along the east sidewall of the pipeline trench. Each cultural deposit was excavated as a natural stratum by hand, and the matrix from each cultural stratum was water -screened off site. Site 45KI438 contains two cultural horizons, separated by alluvial flood deposits.. The lower cultural horizon was identified at a depth of 150 to 165 centimeters (cm) below ground surface. Radiocarbon dating indicates this lower horizon was deposited between 487 and 300 BP. Food remains recovered from the lower horizon included small mammal bone and teeth fragments, bay Cultural Resources Survey Report 4-1 July 2011 King County Department of transportation Chapter 4. Research Design mussels, barnacles, fish bone, wapato and other edible plant tissue. The upper cultural horizon comprises two thin deposits at 110 and 125 cm below ground surface. Archaeological materials in this horizon included a high concentration of fish bone —predominately salmon and steelhead—as well as burned animal bone fragments and shell. Radiocarbon dating puts these deposits between 300 and 150 BP. 45KI438A (Northern Locus) The APE for Segment A passes through the northern locus of the site (45KI438A), which was identified in 1994 and included a hearth feature (Figure 3). Cultural material recovered from 45KI438A had a more extensive horizontal distribution along the north and west walls of the pipeline trench. The cultural materials of 45KI438A were observed in two horizons between 130 and 140 cm below ground surface, and three thin cultural horizons between 165 and 180 cm below ground surface. The upper horizon included an ash hearth with evidence of wapato, elderberry, and fish bone. The cultural deposit of the lower horizon has fish bone, animal bone fragments, shell fragments and elderberry seeds, and processed edible plant tissue. Two small pieces of folded copper were also identified, which are thought to be debris from fishhook manufacturing (Lewarch et al. 1996). Research Methods Archaeological Investigations Between December 2010 and April 2011, ICF International archaeologists conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE using industry -standard methods appropriate for finding and recording cultural resources. The purpose of this survey was to characterize the vertical extent of the APE, identify any visible archaeological materials, and determine if materials associated with 45KI438A would be affected by the proposed project. The survey consisted of walking an east/west transect through the APE and excavating shovel tests. A total of 80 pits were planned to 1) expose sediments that would have the potential to contain cultural materials and 2) delineate the boundary of the existing archaeological site (45KI438A). The aim was to determine whether and at what depth subsurface deposits exist in the APE. A total of 25 STPs were excavated throughout the APE (Figure 4). All shovel tests were excavated by hand, using a shovel and auger, and extracted sediment screened through 1/4-inch-mesh hardware cloth. The shovel test probes (STPs) consisted of conical -shaped excavation pits 50 cm in diameter. STPs were excavated until reaching one of the following: overbank alluvium, Pleistocene sediments, groundwater, obstructing rocks, or the presence of extremely deep fill deposits. STPs were initially spaced at 30-meter intervals and, wherever possible, were excavated to a terminal depth of 100 cm below the surface. Upon completion, the STPs were photographed with a digital camera and backfilled. The sod caps were replaced, and the locations were mapped using a global positioning system (GPS). Photographs of the survey and excavation are presented in Appendix B. Cultural Resources Survey Report I nice to Sound Trail—Sp¢mpnt A 4-2 ICF 00865.10 July 2011 Lewarch 1996 Archaeological Site Boundary Area of Potential Effects Construction Footprint i 1:1,500 0 15 30 60 Meters 0 35 70 140 Feet Source: Lewarch et al (1996) and King County NAIP (2009), USDA ICF Figure 3 45K1458-A Boundary King County Department of Transportation Chapter 4. Research Design After the completion of seven STPs along the eastern margin from Naches Avenue Southwest, it became apparent that deep fill overlaid the area. ICF communicated this finding to the King County Archaeologist, Tom Minichillo, on December 6 2010, and requested permission to modify the original strategy to focus shovel testing in areas that did not appear to contain deep deposits of fill. Dr. Minichillo agreed with this proposed modification. As the investigation moved east to west, standing water was encountered in addition to deep fill deposits. On December 7 2010, Dr. Minichillo was again contacted and he suggested terminating shovel testing along the access road leading to the intersection with Oakesdale Road. Historic Resources Survey The historic resources survey involved a reconnaissance -level examination and documentation of structures in the APE. The data collected include one or more photographs of each structure, the physical characteristics of each resource, and the existence of alterations and overall physical integrity. Construction dates were established based on visual inspection. Properties built before 1965 were identified and information was collected about their physical characteristics. Properties identified as 45 years of age or older were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP and recorded in the Washington State Historic Property Inventory Database, per DAHP reporting standards. Printed record forms for each property are provided in Appendix C of this report. Cultural Resources Survey Report 4-4 July 2011 Chapter 5 Results Stratigraphic Analysis Geologic and topographic maps indicate the APE is located within the floodplain of the Green and Black rivers. Adjacent to the floodplain is an upland created by the deposition of glacial sediments and shaped by subsequent glacial meltwater -induced erosion. Bisecting the APE at the confluence of the Green and Black rivers is Monster Road. The presence of metal rail spikes, coal, slag, plastic, and imported fill gravels in the upper 2 to 4 feet of the sediment profile indicates that heavy disturbance from commercial and urban development in the form of access roads, elevated river crossings, and utility trenches has occurred across the APE in the past. The northeastern section of the APE, along Naches Avenue Southwest, is situated along a relict river channel that has been filled and is now a wetland. Data collected and analyzed from the STPs revealed that the northeastern section of the APE along Naches Avenue Southwest is mostly dense fill, which includes concrete rubble and modern refuse. In one STP at the northernmost end of the APE, sandy silt overbank alluvium was identified under the fill. Based on the current presence of a rail line and roadbed sitting on top of the fill, it is hypothesized that the fill was used to provide a stable platform above the preexisting floodplain for the construction of Naches Avenue Southwest and the BNSF rail lines. The southwestern section of the APE is located on a floodplain which extends along the current Black River channel where it converges with the Green River. STPs in the southwestern section of the APE contained fill gravels with silts and sands that overlaid sandy silts. This composition more closely correlates with what one would expect to find on a natural floodplain. However, neither the known archaeological site (45KI438) nor a clear intact buried surface was encountered within this portion of the APE. The apparent lack of materials associated with 45KI438 within the APE likely reflects general practices of adding a buffer to identified resources in creating archaeological site boundaries. Archaeological Investigations Pedestrian Survey A pedestrian survey of both the north and south shoulder of the existing gravel pathway was conducted before shovel testing and included the length (east/west) of each shoulder. The pedestrian survey revealed that the surface of the APE consists primarily of semi -flat terrain, currently used as a footpath. Adjacent to the APE on the north is a fence line, and beyond is the BNSF railroad. Adjacent to the APE on the south is a densely wooded wetland. No cultural materials were observed on the ground surface in the APE. Cultural Resources Survey Report 5-1 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 5. Results Subsurface Investigations A total of 25 STPs were excavated in the APE (Appendix C), which is bisected by Oakesdale Road (Figure 4). The eastern portion begins at the cul-de-sac of Naches Avenue Southwest in Renton, passing through the Black River riparian forest ending at Oakesdale Road, a distance of 0.8 mile. The westernmost section continues from Oakesdale Road, under the BNSF and Sound Transit Light Rail trestles, into Fort Dent Park in the city of Tukwila and is 0.2 mile in length. A total of 12 STPs (1-9, 17, 22, and 23) were excavated in the eastern portion of the APE, ranging in depth from 52 cm to 262 cm below ground surface. This area of the APE is disturbed with deep deposits of fill. Along the eastern -most margin of the APE, laminated yellowish brown overbank alluvium (fine sand and silt) was encountered at 130 cm in three STPs. No other STPs on the eastern portion of the APE encountered these sediments because of the composition and increased depth of the fill as the STPs continued west. Descriptions of the STPs are provided in Appendix D. The stratigraphic description can be characterized as dark gray to dark brown sandy silt with gravels, angular cobbles, and mottled iron oxides. The western section of the APE, along the Green River part of an exposed floodplain, is divided into two portions: one from Oakesdale Road under two trestles terminating at a chain -link fence; and the other from the chain -link fence into Fort Dent Park. The total distance from Oakesdale Road to Fort Dent Park is 0.2 mile. Thirteen STPs were placed in this western section of the APE at 30-meter intervals ranging in depth from 38 cm to 247 cm below ground depth. Nine STPs (10-16, 18, and 19) were excavated within the section from Fort Dent Park to the fenceline of the BNSF property. Below the sod cap, sediments consisted of a dark brown to yellowish brown sandy silt with 10% pebble content. Beginning between 175 cm and 247 cm, sediments gradually transitioned to light brown sandy silt with little to no pebbles. This transition represents a classic "fining upwards" stratigraphic sequence, where sedimentary texture becomes coarser with depth, which is a common natural depositional process for floodplains. From the chain -link fence to Oakesdale Road, under the BNSF and Sound Transit Light Rail trestles, four STPs (20, 21, 24, and 25) were excavated ranging in depth from 33 cm to 180 cm below ground surface. Gravel overburden was found from the surface to 12 cm below ground surface; compact dark grayish gravels characterize the sedimentary content from 12 cm to 65 cm below surface; and between 65 cm and 100 cm below ground surface the deposit is dark grayish brown silty sandy with iron oxide mottling and slag.. Of the four STPs between Oakesdale Road and the chain -link fence, only one reached 180 cm below ground surface and is thought to be an alluvium deposit of reddish brown moist silty sandy with the absence of pebbles, suggesting that ground disturbance in this area is significantly deep. No precontact artifacts were found in any of the STPs along the APE of Segment A. Historic Resources Survey The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey identified five built environment resources in the APE. Three of these structures are the Monster Road Bridge, a pipeline utility bridge adjacent to the Monster Road Bridge, and the Seattle Central Link Light Rail Bridge. All three resources were determined to be less than 45 years old. The other two resources were determined to be 45 years of age or older (Figure 5). They consist of the BNSF bridges 9.7X A and B, originally built in 1905 with alterations in 1988 and the Pipeline Utility Bridge, constructed c. 1940-1964. Cultural Resources Survey Report 5-2 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 5. Results National Register of Historic Places Evaluation The BNSF bridges 9.7X A and B are plate girder type bridges originally constructed in 1905 with subsequent modifications in 1988. In 1988, BNSF replaced the bridges' southernmost 20-foot timber trestle spans, which dated to 1905, with new concrete tee girder spans (Hale 2011). These bridges appear to have replaced an even older bridge at this location, which was constructed in 1895, as evidenced by the existing bridge's north abutment's date stamp. Both bridges were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. They appear to be common examples of their type and are not known to have historical associations that would warrant special recognition. Based on the NRHP criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4), neither bridges appear eligible for listing in the NRHP. The pipeline utility bridge, which consists of a single pipeline carried on a poured concrete overpass, was originally constructed sometime between 1940 and 1964, according to its appearance in aerial photographs. The structure also appears to have been largely replaced or shortened c. 1975, as evidenced by a 1980 aerial photograph. The structure was evaluated to determine its eligibility for listing in the NRHP. The bridge no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance, largely because of the changes to its support structure c. 1975. The original 1940s-era pipeline utility bridge was substantially altered with the construction of the existing flanged deck, resulting in distinct changes to the bridge's length, width, and overall design. The pipeline utility bridge otherwise is not known to have historical associations that would warrant special recognition. Based on the NRHP criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4), the pipeline utility bridge has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP. Cultural Resources Survey Report S-S July 2011 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Assessment of Effect Because no NRHP-eligible properties have been identified in the APE, no effects on historic properties are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Recommendations A finding of "no historic properties affected" is recommended under Section 106 of the NRHP. Although no historic properties were found in the APE, the western portion of the project area is nonetheless considered sensitive for the presence of precontact archaeological resources because of the nearby presence of 45KI438 and known ethnographic villages. No further formal archaeological work is recommended. Because of the high sensitivity, however, it is possible that previously unidentified and buried archaeological resources could be disturbed during ground -disturbing activities. To ensure significant cultural resources are appropriately treated in this event, it is recommended that a Monitoring Plan and Unanticipated Discovery Protocol be developed before, and implemented during, construction within the recorded boundaries and a 100-foot radius of site 45KI438. In addition, it is recommended that the westernmost extent of the trail —from the BNSF properly line to the western end of Segment A —be designed as an elevated walkway or other design to minimize the amount of construction and maintenance -related ground disturbance and to discourage heavy machinery from inadvertently passing over the previously identified site boundaries of 45KI438. Cultural Resources Survey Report July 2011 Chapter 7 References Cited Ames, K.M. and H.D.G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, England. Barnosky, C.W. 1985 Late Quaternary Vegetation near Battle Ground Lake, Southern Puget Trough, Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin (96):263-271. Bean, K. 1985 Bernard Kassner Residence, King County Historic Sites Survey Inventory Sheet. Record on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Blukis Onat, A.R., M.E. Morgenstein, P.D. LeTourneau, R.P. Stone, J. Kosta, and P. Johnson. 2001 Archaeological Investigations at Stuwe'yuq - Site 45KI464, Tolt River, King County, Washington. Report on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Bonnichsen, R. and K.L. Turnmire (editors) 1991 Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. Peopling of the Americas Publications. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Booth, D.B. and B. Goldstein 1994 Patterns and Processes of Landscape Development of the Puget Lobe Ice Sheet. In Regional Geology of Washington State, edited by R. Lasmanis and E.S. Cheney, pp. 207- 218. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division, Olympia, Washington. Booth, D.B., K.G. Troost, and S.A. Schimel 2009 Geologic Map of Northeastern Seattle (Part of the Seattle North 7.5'x15' Quadrangle), King County, Washington. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3065, scale 1:12000 and database. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. Butler, V.L. and S.K. Campbell 2004 Resource Intensification and Resource Depression in the Pacific Northwest of North America: A Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World Prehistory 18(4):327-405. Castile, G.P. (editor) 1985 The Indians of Puget Sound: The Notebooks of Myron Eells. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Chatters, J.C. 1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadid Site, 45KI51, King County, Washington Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Cultural Resources Survey Report 7_1 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 7. References Cited Chatters, J.C., D.E. Rhode, and K.A. Hoover 1990 Tualdad Altu (45KI159) A Prehistoric Riverine Village in Southern Puget Sound Archaeology in Washington. Pp. 223-248. Cole, D. and D. Darling 1990 History of the Early Period. In Handbook of the Native American Indians Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Courtois, S.L., K.H. Krafft, C. Wickwire, J.C. Bard, and R. McClintock 1999 Central Link Light Rail Transit Project, Seattle, Tukwila, and SeaTac, Washington, Final Technical Report. Prepared for Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Prepared by Courtois & Associates, Seattle, Washington and CH2M Hill, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Dalquest, W.W. 1948 The Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) n.d. Lutz House. Historic Property Inventory Form #42310. Record on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Diether, D.P., F. Pessl, R.F. Keuler, M.A. Balzarini, and D.R. Pevear 1995 Late Wisconsinan Glaciomarine Deposition and Isostatic Rebound, Northern Puget Lowland, Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 107:1288-303. Dragovich, J.D., P.T. Pringle, and T.J. Walsh 1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid -Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland - Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography. Washington Geology 22(3):3-26. Ellis, D. and L. Erickson 2000 Archaeological Monitoring at Three Locations for the Level 3 Construction Project from the Lewis River to Seattle. Prepared by Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., Portland, Oregon. Fladmark, K.R. 1975 A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, Mercury Series, No. 43. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Forsman, L.A., P.S. Solimano, and L.L. Larson 1994 Final Report: Seattle -Tacoma Commuter Rail Project Cultural Resource Overview. Franklin, J.E. and C.T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Greengo, R.E. and R. Houston 1970 Excavations at the Marymoor site (45K19). University of Washington, Department of Anthropology. Seattle, Washington. Cultural Resources Survey Report I olrc to Cni Ind Troil—Ccvmnnt A 7-2 July 2011 IrF nners to King County Department of Transportation Chapter 7. References Cited Grigg, L.D. and C. Whitlock 1998 Late -Glacial Vegetation and Climate Change in Western Oregon. Quaternary Research (49):287-298. Gunther, E. 1945 Ethnobotany of Western Washington: The Knowledge and Use of Indigenous Plants by Native Americans. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hale, J.C., P.E. 2011 Manager Structure Design, BNSF Railway. Personal communication, 7 April 2011. Hall, N.I. 1983 In the Shadow of the Mountain: A Pioneer History of Enumclaw. The Courier -Herald Publishing Company, Enumclaw, Washington. Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hansen, H.P. 1941 Further Pollen Studies of Post Pleistocene Bogs in the Puget Lowlands of Washington. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club (68)3:133-148. Hedlund, G.C. 1973 Background and Archaeology of Inland Cultural Sites at Connell's Prairie, Washington (45PI44a db 45PI45). Green River Community College. Auburn, Washington. 1976 Mudflow Disaster. In Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 10(1):77-89. 1983 On the Enumclaw Plateau in the Southern Puget Sound Lowland. In Prehistoric Places on the Southern Northwest Coast, edited by Robert E. Greengo, pp. 113-120. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Kidd, R. 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Kruckeberg, A.R. 1995 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Lange, G. 2000 Ebey surveys Puget Sound in the spring or summer of 1850. HistoryLink.org Essay 1748. Electronic document, http://historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output. cfm&file_id=1748, accessed April 18, 2011. Lewarch, D. 1995 NRHP Nomination Form. Site 45KI438. Prepared for the National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Cultural Resources Survey Report 7-q July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 7. References Cited Lewarch, D., L.L. Larson, L.A. Forsman, G.F. Moura, E.W. Bangs, and P. Mohr Johnson. 1996 King County Department of Natural Resources Water Pollution Control Division Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project, Allentown Site (45KI431) and White Lake Site (45K1438 and 45KI438A) Data Recovery. Prepared by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, Washington. Linse, A.R. 1992 Is Bone Safe in a Shell Midden? In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by J.K. Stein. pp. 327-347. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Matson, R.G. and G. Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press. San Diego, California. Nelson, C.M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region in Northwest Coast. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Nelson, M.A., N.D. Sharp, L. Hudson, P. Hungar, and C.J. Miss 1996 Report on the Cultural Resources Inventory Completed for the Proposed Worldcom Seattle to Salt Lake City Fiber Optic Line Part 4 Washington. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for David Evans and Associates and WorldCom, Seattle, Washington. Palmer, S.P. 1997 Holocene Geologic History and Sedimentology of the Duwamish and Puyallup Valleys, Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources Geology and Earth Resources Division. Submitted to Dept. of Natural Resources, Survey Requisition No. 96- 744-4455. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon (editors) 1994 Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Porter, S.C. and T.W. Swanson 1988 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet during the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205-213. Rinck, B. 2008 Field Reconnaissance for the Starfire Sports Soccer Field Expansion, King County, Washington Memo, Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Robbins, J.R., L.L. Larson, and D.E. Lewarch 1996 Cultural Resource Monitoring Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project Southern Transfer/Interurban Project. Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, Washington. Smith, A.H. 1964 Ethnographic Guide to the Archaeology of Mount Rainier National Park. Draft prepared for the National Park Service. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington. Formal report publication anticipated by National Park Service, Columbia Cascades System Support Office, Seattle, Washington. Cultural Resources Survey Report 7-4 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 7. References Cited Stein, A.J. 1999 Tukwila —Thumbnail History. HistoryLink.org Essay 2091. Electronic document, http://historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=2091, accessed April 7, 2011. 2003 Fort Dent Park. HistoryLink.org Essay 4114. Electronic document, http://historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=4114, accessed April 7, 2011. Suttles, W. and B. Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-503. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Troost, K.G. and D.B. Booth 2008 Geology of Seattle and the Seattle Area, Washington. Reviews in Engineering Geology 20:1-36. Waguespack, N.M, and T.A. Surovell 2003 Clovis hunting strategies, or how to make out on plentiful resources, American Antiquity 68(2):333-352. Walsh, M.K., C. Whitlock, and P.J. Bartlein 2008 A 14,300-Year-Long Record of Fire -Vegetation -Climate Linkages at Battleground Lake, Southwestern Washington. Quaternary Research (70):251-264. Waterman, T. T. c. 1920 Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file Pacific Northwest Collection, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Wissel, J. 1978a Fred Nelson House. King County Historic Sites Survey Inventory Sheet. Record on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 1978b John [and Louise] Monster House. King County Historic Sites Survey Inventory Sheet. Record on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 1978c Joel Shoemaker House, King County Historic Sites Survey Inventory Sheet. Record on file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Zehfuss, P.H., B.A. Atwater, J.W. Valiance. H. Brenniman, and T.A. Brown 2003 Holocene Lahars and their by-products along the Historical Path of White River between Mount Rainier and Seattle. Geological Society of America Field Guide 4. Cultural Resources Survey Report y 5 July 2011 Appendix A Correspondence KC RoAd Svt,Div Oy'O3' 1(04IOe3 Road Services Division Department of Transportation KSC-TR-0231 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 September 2, 2010 Phil Segami Assistant Local Programs Engineer Northwest Region Washington State Department of Transportation P, O. Box 330310 Olympia, WA 98133-9710 RE: Federal Aid Project Number CM-2017(110) Agreement No. LA 7150 Lake to Sound Trail (CIP R43043) National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 —APE Dear Mr. Segami: With this letter the King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division (RSD) is initiating the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process for the Lake to Sound Trail Project. This letter provides to you the project scope and information regarding the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE). This project has federal funds and the Federal Aid Project Number is CM-2017(110). The information contained in this letter will assist you in your transmittal to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and in the Federal Highway Administration's initiation of Tribal consultation, as required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We respectfully request copies of correspondence with the DAHP and the Tribes for our records. Project Purpose: The Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail System consists of 17 miles of planned regional trail for use as a multi -purpose, non -motorized route. (See the attached Project Vicinity Map, Figure 1).. This effort to connect Lake Washington to Puget Sound is a joint partnership between the cities of SeaTac, Renton, Tukwila, Burien, and Des Moines, in coordination with King County. Planning for the entire L2S Trail system is complete and many segments have already been constructed. Two specific sections, Segments A and B, that are described below were selected to receive a 2009 King Countywide STP/CMAQ Non -Motorized grant. These two segments are critical linkages in the L2S Trail System and still need to be designed and constructed. The scope of work for completing these two segments consists of environmental analysis, permitting, administration, and professional engineering/design. Phil Segami September 2, 2010 Page 2 Project Location: The entire 17-mile regional trail would Iink Lake Washington to Puget Sound, beginning in the City of Renton, moving through Tukwila, SeaTac, Burien and Des Moines. It would link the Cedar River, the Green River, the Westside and the Des Moines Creek Trails. Please see the attached Figure 2 showing the entire corridor route, the cities and the location of Segments A and B. Segment A provides the connection between the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and begins on the east at the crossing of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Corridor at Naches Avenue. Segment A's western terminus is at the crossing of the Green River Trail by the rail corridor at Fort Dent Park. Segment B is located entirely on the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive beginning at the north in the City of SeaTac at South 156th Street and ending at South Normandy Road in Burien. Project Description: The following provides a brief description of Segments A and B. Segment A - Naches Avenue to Fort Dent Park: Segment A will provide connectivity between the cities of Renton and Tukwila, two of the region's most rapidly - growing urban areas, as well as a safe connection under heavy rail lines, which are a barrier today. This segment will provide connections to a larger trail network in South King County, including the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. This connection would also serve to provide access to major transit stations including the Sounder Commuter Rail Station and LINK Light Rail Station. Segment B - Des Moines Memorial Drive (Cities of and Burien): Segment B will extend along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive from South 156th Street at the north in the City of SeaTac to South Normandy Road in the City of Burien. The north end of this segment will connect to the existing Westside Trail, which further connects to North SeaTac Park and to the existing bike lanes and sidepath running east -west on South 156th Street. This network includes connections to the Duwamish Trail to the north and with the Burien Town Square to the west. This connection would also serve to provide access to the LINK Light Rail Station. Proposed Action: The vertical disturbance would be approximately two feet along Segment A. The vertical disturbance would also be approximately two feet along much of Segment B, except where adjacent to an open water feature, where deeper retaining walls or pilings may be required. Segment A: The total length for this segment is approximately 5,175 linear feet or 0.98 mile of trail. The typical cross-section for this segment is shown on the attached Figure 3 and depicts a "Two -Way Multi -Use Trail" configuration. This configuration would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section, bounded by 2-foot-wide soft shoulders and a 1-foot-wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an approximate 18-foot-wide trail. Prehistoric archaeological site 45-KI-A43 which has previously been determined eligible I38 Phil Segami September 2, 2010 Page 3 for the National Register of Historic Places, is located within the APE for Segment A. Please see attached Figure 3 — Typical Cross -Section for two -Way Multi -Use Trail. Segment B. The total length for this segment is approximately 7,920 linear feet or 1.5 miles. The typical cross sections for this segment are shown on Figure 4. This configuration would be a two-way multi -use trail immediately adjacent to the east side of the street. The configuration would include a 12-foot-wide paved path at least 3 to 6 feet from the edge of the pavement to any obstructions. The 3 to 6 feet includes a shoulder and a clear zone. Please see attached Figure 4 — Typical Cross -Section for Sidepaths, Bike Lanes and Sidewalks. Area of Potential Effect (APE): Before RSD initiates a comprehensive cultural resources survey, including subsurface probes, we are writing to obtain APE certification. The enclosed maps on Figures 5 and 6 focus on two areas: 1. The Archaeological APE: The Archaeological APE is defined as the zone affected by all potential vertical and horizontal ground disturbance associated with the project. These areas include 25 feet from the edge of the existing gravel trail for much of Segment A. For Segment B, it is the east edge of the road pavement to the Seattle Tacoma International Airport property line. Please see Figures 5A and 58. 2. The Built Environment APE: The Built Environment APE is defined as the potential effects to the "local view corridor" from the project roadway from existing buildings within the vicinity of the roadway. Tall historic structures within 25 feet of the proposed route are included within the APE. Please note that there are no buildings to evaluate in the area of Segment A. See Figures 6A and 6B. Project Schedule: The King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources is planning to advertise this project in early 2012. The project will be built in phases and depending on the final advertisement date and available funding the first phase of Segment B would take approximately six months. The Lake to Sound Trail project team thanks you in advance for your participation in this project. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call me at 206-296-3733. Sincerely, i-Let,„A Tina Morehead Senior Environmental Engineer Environmental Unit TIv1:mr Phil Segami September 2, 2010 Page 4 Enclosures: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Figure 2: Lake to Sound Trail Corridor Route Figure 3: Typical Cross Section for the Two Way Multi -Use Trail — Segment A Figure 4: Typical Cross Section for the Sidepaths, Bike Lanes and Sidewalks — Segment B Figure 5A: Archaeological Area of Potential Effect Map — Section A Figure 5B: Archaeological Area of Potential Effect Map — Section B Figure 6A: Built Environment Area of Potential Effect Map — Section A Figure 6B: Built Environment Area of Potential Effect Map — Section B cc: Charlie Sundberg, Preservation Planner, Heritage and Preservation Planning (w/ enclosures) Susan Oxholm, Grants Administrator, CIP and Planning Unit Tom Minichillo, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Coordinator, CIP and Planning Unit (w/ enclosures) Ronda Strauch, Supervising Environmental Engineer, Environmental Unit Jason Rich, Capital Project Manager, Parks CIP Unit (w/ enclosures) Saved as: Segami - L2S - 081810 (APE) Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation September 15, 2010 The Honorable Virginia Cross Muckleshoot Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Aubum, Washington 98092 Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-7057000 TTY: 1.800-833-6388 www,wsdot.wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project Initiation of Section 106 // APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) Dear Chairperson Cross: RECEIVED SEP 2.0 2010 LOCAL PROGRAMS King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. FHWA and WSDOT would like to initiate government -to -government consultation for this project. Among other things, we would like this consultation to address the cultural and historic resource issues, pursuant to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800). WSDOT has entered into the environmental review phase of this project and will prepare documentation to support the determination of this project as a Documented Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are inviting your continents on the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. Recognizing the government -to -government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency. If this project requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), this consultation will also serve to meet their Section 106 responsibilities. However, since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation and to directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. The Lake to Sound Trail is a 17-mile-long trail located in King County that connects Lake Washington to the Puget Sound (see attached map). Portions of the trail have already been constructed and the proposed project would construct segments A and B of the trail. Segment A (approximately 5,175 feet in length) would connect the cities of The Honorable Virginia Cross Muckleshoot Tribe September 15, 2010 Page 2 Renton to Tukwila, beginning at Naches Avenue and terminating at Fort Dent Park. Segment B (approximately 7,920 feet in length) would connect the cities of SeaTac and Burien, beginning at South 156'h Street and extending along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive to terminate at South Normandy Road. In both cases, the trail would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section. The Segment A portion would include two -foot - wide soft shoulders with a one -foot -wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an 18-foot total trail width. Retaining walls or pilings may be required along a portion of Segment B that is adjacent to an open water feature. The APE is defined as the footprint of the construction items listed above, which is approximately 25 feet in total width. Estimated depth of ground disturbance is less than two feet in depth except where retaining walls or pilings are required. Site 45KI438 (the White Lake Site), a prehistoric archaeological site that has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, lies within the APE of Segment A. As part of the scope of work for the project survey, boundaries and depths of fill within the APE will be positively defined. Based upon these findings, recommendations will be made by the consultant in the survey report on the most prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, in identifying any historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may exist within the project's APE, and providing any key tribal contacts, is greatly appreciated. We are also inviting comments regarding any other tribal concerns the proposed project may raise. Please provide a response by 18 October 2010 so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Puyallup, Snoqualmie, Squaxin Island, and Yakama Indian Tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705- 7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Trent de Boer, RPA WSDOT Archaeologist Highways & Local Programs Division TDB:ac cc: Laura Murphy, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources, w/attachments Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Natural Resources Pete Jilek, FHWA, MS 40943 `-" V" Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation September 15, 2010 Dr. Allyson Brooks Washington State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 Dear Dr. Brooks: Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY. 1-800-833-8388 www.wsdot.wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project Initiation of Section 106 // APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) RECEIVED SEP 2 "O Z010 LOCAL PROGRAMS King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. As noted above this correspondence is intended to initiate consultation and provide you our definition of the Area of Potential Effects (APE), pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 and 800.4 respectively. The Lake to Sound Trail is a 17-mile-long trail located in King County that connects Lake Washington to the Puget Sound (see attached map). Portions of the trail have already been constructed and the proposed project would construct segments A and B of the trail. Segment A (approximately 5,175 feet in length) would connect the cities of Renton to Tukwila, beginning at Naches Avenue and terminating at Fort Dent Park. Segment B (approximately 7,920 feet in length) would connect the cities of SeaTac and Burien, beginning at South 156th Street and extending along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive to terminate at South Normandy Road. In both cases, the trail would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section. The Segment A portion would include two -foot - wide soft shoulders with a one -foot -wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an 18-foot total trail width. Retaining walls or pilings may be required along a portion of Segment B that is adjacent to an open water feature. The APE is defined as the footprint of the construction items listed above, which is approximately 25 feet in total width. Estimated depth of ground disturbance is less than two feet in depth except where retaining walls or pilings are required. Site 45KI438 (the White Lake Site), a prehistoric archaeological site that has been determined to be eligible for Iisting in the National Register of Historic Places, lies within the APE of Segment A. Dr. Allyson Brooks Washington State Historic Preservation Officer September 15, 2010 Page 2 As part of the scope of work for the project survey, boundaries and depths of fill within the APE will be positively defined. Based upon these findings, recommendations will be made by the consultant in the survey report on the most prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. I look forward to your comments or input on any aspect of the APE or project undertaking by 18 October 2010. Analogous letters were sent to the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Snoqualmie, Squaxin Island, and Yakarna Indian Tribes, Please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Trent de Boer, RPA WSDOT Archaeologist Highways & Local Programs Division TDB:ac Enclosure cc: Pete Jilek, FHWA, MS 40943 �'; Ed�%iiyers; :Noxttiwest;�t�giou :Loeai:�Prog�aiiis :•l�,ngiileer : MS • isiB 82=�1'21 Wis°Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation September 15, 2010 The Honorable Harry Smiskin Yakama Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, Washington 98948 Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project Initiation of Section 106 // APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) Dear Chairperson Smiskin: RECEIVED SEP 2 Q z0lo LOCAL PROGRAMS King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. FHWA and WSDOT would like to initiate government -to -government consultation for this project. Among other things, we would like this consultation to address the cultural and historic resource issues, pursuant to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800). WSDOT has entered into the environmental review phase of this project and will prepare documentation to support the determination of this project as a Documented Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are inviting your comments on the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. Recognizing the government -to -government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency. If this project requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), this consultation will also serve to meet their Section 106 responsibilities. However, since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation and to directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. The Lake to Sound Trail is a 17-mile-long trail located in King County that connects Lake Washington to the Puget Sound (see attached map). Portions of the trail have already been constructed and the proposed project would construct segments A. and B of the trail. Segment A (approximately 5,175 feet in length) would connect the cities of The Honorable Harry Smiskin Yakarna Nation September 15, 2010 Page 2 Renton to Tukwila, beginning at Naches Avenue and terminating at Fort Dent Park. Segment B (approximately 7,920 feet in length) would connect the cities of SeaTac and Burien, beginning at South 156th Street and extending along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive to terminate at South Normandy Road. In both cases, the trail would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section. The Segment A portion would include two -foot - wide soft shoulders with a one -foot -wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an 18-foot total trail width. Retaining walls or pilings may be required along a portion of Segment B that is adjacent to an open water feature. The APE is defined as the footprint of the construction items listed above, which is approximately 25 feet in total width. Estimated depth of ground disturbance is less than two feet in depth except where retaining walls or pilings are required. Site 45KI438 (the White Lake Site), a prehistoric archaeological site that has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, lies within the APE of Segment A. As part of the scope of work for the project survey, boundaries and depths of fill within the APE will be positively defined. Based upon these findings, recommendations will be made by the consultant in the survey report on the most prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, in identifying any historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may exist within the project's APE, and providing any key tribal contacts, is greatly appreciated. We are also inviting comments regarding any other tribal concerns the proposed project may raise. Please provide a response by 18 October 2010 so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Snoqualmie, and Squaxin Island Indian Tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Trent de Boer, RPA WSDOT Archaeologist Highways & Local Programs Division TDB:ac cc: Kate Valdez, Yakama Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, wfattachrnents Phillip Rigdon, Yakama Natural Resources Pete Jilek, FHWA,_MS:40943. .Conyers -Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer, MS N1382-121, WWashington State ^ ` Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation September 15, 2010 The Honorable David Lopeman Squaxin Island Tribe SE 10 Squaxin Lane Shelton, Washington 98584 Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY: 1-800.833-6388 www.wsdol.wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project Initiation of Section 106 // APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) Dear Chairperson Lopeman: RECEIVED SEP 240 2010 LOCAL PROGRAMS King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. FHWA and WSDOT would like to initiate government -to -government consultation for this project. Among other things, we would like this consultation to address the cultural and historic resource issues, pursuant to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800). WSDOT has entered into the environmental review phase of this project and will prepare documentation to support the determination of this project as a Documented Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are inviting your comments on the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. Recognizing the government -to -government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency. If this project requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), this consultation will also serve to meet their Section 106 responsibilities. However, since WSDOT has been delegated the authority front FHWA to initiate consultation and to directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. The Lake to Sound Trail is a 17-mile-long trail located in King County that connects Lake Washington to the Puget Sound (see attached map). Portions of the trail have already been constructed and the proposed project would construct segments A and B of the trail. Segment A (approximately 5,175 feet in length) would connect the cities of The Honorable David Lopeman Squaxin Island Tribe September 15, 2010 Page 2 Renton to Tukwila, beginning at Naches Avenue and terminating at Fort Dent Park. Segment B (approximately 7,920 feet in length) would connect the cities of SeaTac and Burien, beginning at South 156th Street and extending along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive to terminate at South Normandy Road. In both cases, the trail would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section. The Segment A portion would include two -foot - wide soft shoulders with a one -foot -wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an 18-foot total trail width. Retaining walls or pilings may be required along a portion of Segment B that is adjacent to an open water feature. The APE is defined as the footprint of the construction items Listed above, which is approximately 25 feet in total width. Estimated depth of ground disturbance is less than two feet in depth except where retaining walls or pilings are required. Site 45KI438 (the White Lake Site), a prehistoric archaeological site that has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, lies within the APE of Segment A. As part of the scope of work for the project survey, boundaries and depths of fill within the APE will be positively defined. Based upon these findings, recommendations will be made by the consultant in the survey report on the most prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, in identifying any historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may exist within the project's APE, and providing any key tribal contacts, is greatly appreciated. We are also inviting comments regarding any other tribal concerns the proposed project may raise. Please provide a response by 18 October 2010 so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Snoqualmie, and Yakama Indian Tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705- 7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Trent de Boer, RPA WSDOT Archaeologist Highways & Local Programs Division TDB:ac cc: Rhonda Foster, Squaxin Island T. H. P. O., w/attachments Andy Whitener, Squaxin Island Natural Resources Pete Jilek, FHWA, MS 40943 ']Sd Coitiyeis; ntliivas' I n�T ocall ogfams Engizieei YMS2NB82-12•L Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation September 15, 2010 The Honorable Shelley Burch Snoqualmie Nation PO Box 969 Snoqualmie, Washington 98065 Transportation Bufilding 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E_ P.O. Box 47300 Olympia. WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY: 1-800.833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project Initiation of Section 106 // APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) Dear Chairperson Burch: RECEIVED SEP 2 2010 LOCAL PROGRAMS King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. FHWA and WSDOT would like to initiate government -to -government consultation for this project. Among other things, we would like this consultation to address the cultural and historic resource issues, pursuant to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800). WSDOT has entered into the environmental review phase of this project and will prepare documentation to support the determination of this project as a Documented Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are inviting your comments on the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. Recognizing the government -to -government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency. If this project requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), this consultation will also serve to meet their Section 106 responsibilities. However, since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation and to directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. The Lake to Sound Trail is a 17-mile-long trail located in King County that connects Lake Washington to the Puget Sound (see attached map). Portions of the trail have already been constructed and the proposed project would construct segments A and B of the trail. Segment A (approximately 5,175 feet in length) would connect the cities of The Honorable Shelley Burch Snoqualmie Nation September 15, 2010 Page 2 Renton to Tukwila, beginning at Naches Avenue and terminating at Fort Dent Park. Segment B (approximately 7,920 feet in length) would connect the cities of SeaTac and Burien, beginning at South 156th Street and extending along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive to terminate at South Normandy Road. In both cases, the trail would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section. The Segment A portion would include two -foot - wide soft shoulders with a one -foot -wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an 18-foot total trail width. Retaining walls or pilings may be required along a portion of Segment B that is adjacent to an open water feature. The APE is defined as the footprint of the construction items listed above, which is approximately 25 feet in total width. Estimated depth of ground disturbance is less than two feet in depth except where retaining walls or pilings are required. Site 45KI438 (the White Lake Site), a prehistoric archaeological site that has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, lies within the APE of Segment A. As part of the scope of work for the project survey, boundaries and depths of fill within the APE will be positively defined. Based upon these findings, recommendations will be made by the consultant in the survey report on the most prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, in identifying any historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may exist within the project's APE, and providing any key tribal contacts, is -greatly appreciated. We are also inviting comments regarding any other tribal concerns the proposed project may raise. Please provide a response by 18 October 2010 so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Squaxin Island, and Yakama Indian Tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705- 7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Trent de WSDOT Archaeologist Highways & Local Programs Division TDB:ac cc: Ray Mullen, Snoqualmie Cultural Resources, w/attachments Cindy Spiry, Snoqualmie Natural Resources Pete Jilek, FHWA, MS 40943 M eg tUfivaca P vgra isKE 3ieerMSNBg2A21• 71 Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation September 15, 2010 The Honorable Herman Dillon, Sr. Puyallup Tribe 3009 Portland Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98404 Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY; 1.800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project Initiation of Section 106 // APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) Dear Chairperson Dillon: RECEIVED SEP 2`ti 2Q10 LOCAL PROGRAMS King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. FHWA and WSDOT would like to initiate government -to -government consultation for this project. Among other things, we would like this consultation to address the cultural and historic resource issues, pursuant to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800). WSDOT has entered into the environmental review phase of this project and will prepare documentation to support the determination of this project as a Documented Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are inviting your comments on the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. Recognizing the government -to -government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency. If this project requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), this consultation will also serve to meet their Section 106 responsibilities. However, since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation and to directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. The Lake to Sound Trail is a 17-mile-long trail located in King County that connects Lake Washington to the Puget Sound (see attached map). Portions of the trail have already been constructed and the proposed project would construct segments A and B of the trail. Segment A (approximately 5,175 feet in length) would connect the cities of The Honorable Herman Dillon, Sr. Puyallup Tribe September 15, 2010 Page 2 Renton to Tukwila, beginning at Naches Avenue and terminating at Fort Dent Park. Segment B (approximately 7,920 feet in Iength) would connect the cities of SeaTac and Burien, beginning at South 156th Street and extending along the east side of Des Moines Memorial Drive to terminate at South Normandy Road. In both cases, the trail would consist of a 12-foot-wide paved section. The Segment A portion would include two -foot - wide soft shoulders with a one -foot -wide clear zone on each side, resulting in an 18-foot total trail width. Retaining walls or pilings may be required along a portion of Segment B that is adjacent to an open water feature. The APE is defined as the footprint of the construction items listed above, which is approximately 25 feet in total width. Estimated depth of ground disturbance is less than two feet in depth except where retaining walls or pilings are required. Site 45KI438 (the White Lake Site), a prehistoric archaeological site that has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, lies within the APE of Segment A. As part of the scope of work for the project survey, boundaries and depths of fill within the APE will be positively defined. Based upon these findings, recommendations will be made by the consultant in the survey report on the most prudent and feasible avoidance alternatives. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, in identifying any historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may exist within the project's APE, and providing any key tribal contacts, is greatly appreciated. We are also inviting comments regarding any other tribal concerns the proposed project may raise. Please provide a response by 18 October 2010 so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Squaxin Island, and Yakama Indian Tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Trent de Boer, RPA WSDOT Archaeologist Highways & Local Programs Division TDB:ac cc: Brandon Reynon, Puyallup Cultural Resources, w/attachments Bill Sullivan, Puyallup Natural Resources Pete Jilek, FHWA, MS 40943 litiMaiyiziRlailiiiiittlitgiogAcaliggigggaaggiueex,iMSAWSZertri STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov September 28, 2010 Mr. Trent de Boer Archaeologist WSDOT, Highways & Local Programs PO Box 47390 Olympia, WA 98504-7390 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 092810-19-FHWA Property: Lake to Sound Trail Re: Archaeology - APE Concur Dear Mr. de Boer: Hwys & Local Prograrns SEP e 9 2010 Olympia, WA We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the Lake to Sound Trail project. Thank you for your description of the area of potential effect (APE). We concur with the definition of the APE. We look forward to the results of your cultural resources survey efforts, your consultation with the concerned tribes, and receiving the survey report. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4) and the survey report when it is available. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. 1f you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Lance Wollwage, Ph.D. Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3536 lance.wollwage@dahp.wa.gov 1 1 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Appendix B Photo Log ICF JQNES & STOKES Photo Log Project Name:. A. Project Number:. .6�s. Camera (brand, or, model): C Page. 1 of 1-I Photo # Direction Description Date/Initial S N 5TP41 fafrila7G 1Jery .. I df' Tit P9 4 &dA 'f d At 3' ii%4 t {l }Jpwc. fi2sw,_ ° srt'PI \ t N14 n"► dori x G',-JCCcwIs S713 10 Al S."*2 ram. 11 t 5f04 j ric k' .lft,l 544e 94444/ AtietrG4te i l N ' Q' 4 fc.-rivAmtrl 11. r 1a S tnh c, Y•. i1li c. Atk 13 N) Sri Itk 4{ r& 11 N S1'e 6 TT - I g i,/ ST, $-7 -nos', 16 W STt 1 7 -. 0c f1 41 ,IC 5 0-.03 . r,, `,„, .:: .,, , U S1- g G L :.)Se up ikfkr (,,(Jh"" '.a 1e .Violas M 4c4- 1,044 d-/D r •� f o i (`S , ck) 4 !u a- 3 4G . s i�+'v ce c.-� tr rt MR 9 Cap 1,.*- N 6 /evv;-c.J d"C VI • IU /E ,1*F 21 jj DOS! FOF :' C.N „�jJr- ,-v /Jr a') (L a/- M-,d- I 1/3 ,r,. 10A1.) .c1.44/''''''-- f,e. btien' if-k "( - Alej. tii w Tzf li.U' ki-94- i.az.. CA.034 fro t% t'' 1,g-1.(a tt) ,9re.4. 6vb2o; sci 1,-) 57-e .J.- ir -140 FE —Idie( Agil'e tot t� err ICF JONES & STOKES Photo Log Project Name: 4 w s'k- Project Numbers Camera (brand, color, model): Page of Photo # Direction Description Date/initial N• Flati Sly' (q el.er ✓rr‘‘.) `53 f11 %6h ST3� JAI r t gl1ie'i, t-F Ai SIT /6 ©v - W wGY eid ,} h'Pll for of 1' 1a ? Sid/7 iJ71l Pi 3 t N SrF 1-7- i'yopetssa6k aclable. 3 cl M 5tP .1 a tt-w , , tvacw,b; A.A lip p 5 P ikl ktiNkt-' DA - (000035 i(1, ti w l /4c.r t x - CJAIS ' ' 1 s a A ix( trAc .. t tl 3 561 J't 05 64.. v i o f c) i. (. I L Q h; # ,,tc„ a f-Z,.. '3/44C'- . °1--k q< r f i QJ -- 4..11 FA t f' -raf.4.4 f-t. 9ZIA 4. , r , i(' ' N-f ,v c..' -- a 4vi ` C) caeca30 a rc. . )4 til- q.S. s sfki-»N wig`, ktiAlk 5 1 oK, k 'tic QV _5ksa (AA/V.16600 Chki''' AlAt-- Ai t, PI:1): 0 k •L' 1 4 ti SA S".. — SIT ,- 23 - -c t.. .-v), .,(v 0r4 S 8ua18679 005 8ua18679 010 8ua18679 015 8ua18679 020 8ua18679 025 8ua18679 030 8ua18679 006 8ua18679 011 8ua18679 016 8ua18679 021 8ua18679 026 8ua18679 031 8ua18679 007 8ua18679 012 8ua18679 017 8ua18679 022 8ua18679 027 8ua18679 032 8ua18679 008 8ua18679 013 8ua18679 018 8ua18679 023 8ua18679 028 8ua18679 033 8ua18679 009 8ua18679 014 8ua18679 019 8ua18679 024 8ua18679 029 8ua18679 034 8ua18679 035 8ua18679 036 8ua18679 037 8ua18679 038 8ua18679 039 8ua18679 040 8ua18679 045 8ua18679 050 8ua18679 055 8ua18679 041 8ua18679 046 8ua18679 051 8ua18679 056 8ua18679 042 8ua18679 047 8ua18679 052 8ua18679 057 8ua18679 043 8ua18679 048 8ua18679 053 8ua18679 044 8ua18679 049 8ua18679 054 Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 ICF JONES & STOKES Photo Log Project Name:,SrAir e.r A Project Number: _ Camera (brand, color, model): N&ive4s QXS Page t of Photo # Direction Description Date/Initial I, N , V�} A a�c�. c' osk s'icy I 6/0 1 r/ 3 conauAk \otkwe erg e..5 6 N a- corasIONlJ skruA cts orv-iPtiN a, MS ` ( ICF JONES & STOKES Photo Log r Project Name:Sco (J Project Number: gGs e 4O Camera (brand, co'for, modei):J,))C NEC1`i,foR Page % of Photo # Direction Description . Date/Initial c o l N k .\-''t4 Te--VW,o, I: ki,, C lo0o 3 .c 411 l? R 00 N P, si -a...,- h,��t,, t(k. ,sl',,..� �o� q�s ', r\ whit 00 k fit `� it 1 E `1 1 ` ', co `l t\J t 5i ),5 Tt,rw' rd dUL.01 v60 cx(5 N t (Dvrx\''P,vJ/ Loc on of S\ a.`\oc,n -'r,as\es ego 6 E avt)N' e-» Locko-r\ n Sr .X..5` & e oV h oJ-s QC C.-- o''J,se-Yl Ie_QK '111 Sk 7 C 0Ac:S, 6 * 0 0 s T A i Up- " 665 bLq rrc 009 wk t( 11 Ooco N A. P3290001 P3290006 P3290002 P3290007 P3290003 P3290008 P3290004 P3290009 P3290005 P3290010 Appendix C Shovel Test Descriptions Shovel Test Descriptions — Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Shovel Depth Cultural Test (cmbs) Color Sediment Description Interpretation Materials Notes 1 0-28 Dark Brown Mottled sandy silt with angular One fragment of cobbles, road gravels; 'A' calcified animal horizon formed in upper 20cm bone 28-72 Mottled Gray Silty clay with occasional round gravel, massive to blocky laminations, with few ferric oxide mottling 72-95 Dark gray Fine sandy silt with occasional rootlets, few ferric oxide and overbank alluvium 2 0-35 Dark Brown Sandy silt with angular cobbles, Brick road gravel; 'A' horizon formed fragments, in upper 20cm metal and wire nails 35-95 Gray Silty clay with angular and round gravel 3 0-39 Dark Brown Sandy silt with angular cobbles and road gravel; 'A horizon formed in upper 20cm 39-52 Gray Silty clay with angular and round gravel 52-60 Yellow Medium grain sand, either Terminated early decomposing Tukwila formation due to possible or buried utility utility 4 0-31 Dark Brown Sandy silt with angular cobbles and road gravel; 'A' horizon formed in upper 20cm 31-60 Gray Silty clay with angular and round gravel 60-70 Black Oiled asphalt Terminated early due to deep asphalt 5 0-23 Dark brown Sandy silt with angular cobbles and road gravel; 'A' horizon formed in upper 20cm 23-52 Gray Silty clay with angular and Terminated early round gravel due to impenetrable concrete fill Shovel Depth Cultural Test (cmbs) Color Sediment Description Interpretation Materials Notes 6 0-55 Gray Silty clay with angular and Terminated early round gravel due to two pieces of rebar in bottom. 7 0-12 Brown Mixed gravelly sandy silt 12-68 Brown 68-200 Brown Massive to laminated silt with sand, looks intact, overbank alluvium, inclusion of organic silt, moderate compaction Fine variegated sand, massive, sharp contract, moderate compaction, overbank alluvium 200-262 Grayish brown Laminated fine sand and silt with ferric oxide mottling Auger started at 100cmbs. Terminated at extent of auger. 8 0-22 Brown Silt with occasional angular to round gravel, moderate compaction, 'A' horizon in top 15cm 22-130 Yellowish Silt with fine sand, massive, Auger started at brown overbank alluvium, moderate 100cmbs. compaction Terminated due to impassable rounded pebbles. 9 0-12 Brown Fine sandy silt with faint 'A' horizon in top 5cm, clear contact, loose compaction 12-258 Brown Laminated silty fine sandy with few small rootlets, overbank alluvium, moderate compaction Auger started at 100cmbs. Terminated at extent of auger, 258cmbs 10 0-35 Brown Silt with fine sand, 'A' horizon at upper interface, overbank alluvium, loose compaction, clear contact 35-100 Grayish brown Silty fine sand, moderate One piece of Bioturbated by compaction, overbank alluvium, ferrous root in tact material at 65cmbs Shovel Depth Cultural Test (cmbs) Color Sediment Description Interpretation Materials Notes 11 0-39 Grayish brown Sandy gravelly silt, dense One piece of compaction plastic 39-104 Brown Silty fine sand, massive, few small to medium roots, overbank alluvium, moderate compaction 12 0-15 Dark brown Mottled sandy silt with angular cobbles, and roadbed gravel, 'A' horizon formed in upper 20cm, angular gravels are minimal 5-10% 15-40 Gray Mottled silty clay with occasional round gravel inclusions, massive to laminated, few iron mottles 40-59 Gray Gradual contact between previous level and following 59-100 Dark gray Fine sandy silt with occasional Creosote rootlets, few iron oxide mottling, wood bark at bottom of excavation; fragments, limestone from 90-92cmbs Styrofoam, glass and small brick fragments. 13 0-13 Dark brown Mottled sandy silt with angular cobbles, roadbed gravel, 'A' horizon formed in first 13cm 13-72 Dark brown Mottled sandy silt with angular Black burn cobbles, roadbed gravel, with deposits concrete brick and rebar in walls 14 0-10 Dark Mottled sandy silt with angular brown/Grayish cobbles, roadbed gravel brown 10-19 Light brown Sandy silt with larger gravel, angular to round Shovel Depth Cultural Test (cmbs) Color Sediment Description Interpretation Materials Notes 19-26 Black Burnt sand deposit, loose to moderate 26-38 Gray Compact ashy deposit with ST is located on brick fragments the inside of bend in road grade. All deposits are fill, all contacts are abrupt and appear as graded or cuts. Probe hole elongated to south due to black sand deposit containing unknown metal pipe, one inch in diameter. Deposit appears to be increasing in depth to south as if pushed/rounded over slope. 15 0-41 Brown 5-10% gravel, 'A' horizon in top 15cm 41-72 Yellowish Compact sand, with high brown concentration of round gravel 72-175 Light brown Sandy silt, moderate to loose compaction with 5% gravel/pebbles 175-247 Light brown Mottled silty sand, loose to Possible moderate compaction, iron krotovina in first oxide mottling, little or no 40cm, few gravel/pebbles rootlets throughout 16 0-26 Yellowish Moderate compaction, angular brown to round roadbed or foot path gravel, 'A' horizon at about 10cmbs Shovel Depth Test (cmbs) Color 26-28 28-94 Gray Sediment Description Root mass/stoppage at interface Very fine sandy silt with little gravel and increasing pebble content with depth, 5-10% rootlets throughout, slight gray mottling at 75cmbs, slight silt/clay increase Interpretation Cultural Materials Notes 17 0-19 Gray Silty sand, very compact, with rootlets throughout, round to angular gravel and cobbles 19-40 Some soil, concrete slab in NW corner of unit Clear, amber and green glass, brick fragments, and concrete. Terminated at 40cm due to impassable cobbles/rubble. 18 0-7 Brown 7-26 Grayish brown Silty loam/duff Moderately compact silty sand with mottled iron oxide, 5-10% gravel, with charcoal flecks and tan/gray inclusions 26-28 Lens of iron clasts and gravel 28-53 53-56 56-100 Dark grayish brown Iron oxide mottling, silty sand, decreasing gravels and moderate compaction Iron clast concentration Same soils, slight increase in redness 7-16cmbs redeposited plastic and unknown material 19 0-43 Brown Sandy silt with 5% gravel, loose to moderate compaction, rootlets throughout, clear abrupt contact Shovel Depth Cultural Test (cmbs) Color Sediment Description Interpretation Materials Notes 43-99 Yellowish Fine silty sand, moderate brown/Gray compact, transitions at 60cmbs to a grayish with 5% gravel and 1 large subangular cobble 20 0-17 Brown 'A' horizon, larger cobbles and roadbed gravel 17-134 Reddish brown 134-160 Gray Fine sand, moderate compaction, mottled with a few rootlets, 10% gravel in the margin diminishing with depth Transition to sandy silt, slight clay with red mottling 160-215 Gray/bluish Iron clast at 190 cmbs, highly gray mottled with occasional 215-236 No description provided Terminated at 236cmbs 21 0-15 Dark brown Sandy silt with 50% gravel and pebbles, highly compacted, road surface 15-27 Intermixed gravels from road surface and subsurface deposits 27-102 Reddish Fine sand, increasing silt brown content with depth, 5-10% gravels/pebbles, some gray mottling 22 0-33 Gray Mottled silt very wet Large Terminated early concrete due to block, wire, impassable rebar wetness gravel/cobbles/ru bble. Rebar 4' in length 23 0-10 Brown 'A' horizon forming with large angular cobbles Shovel Depth Cultural Test (cmbs) Color Sediment Description Interpretation Materials Notes 10-52 Gray Compact sand and silt, wet, Brick and large round and angular metal cobbles fragments 24 0-40 Gray Gravel overburden, pebbly sandy silt moderate compaction, reddish tan boundary at 40cmbs 40-65 Reddish tan Loose to moderately compact sand. Plastic 65-75 Dark Grayish Silt and sand, mottled with iron Metal pull top Brown oxide, 10-15% gravels and can (non pebbles ferrous), plastic, clear and brown glass fragments 75-100 Dark Grayish Moderate grain sand with iron Terminated at Brown oxide mottling rounded to 100cmbs object subrounded gravels blocking 25 0-12 Gray Gravel overburden, silty sand with rounded to subrounded gravel 12-42 Gray Moderate compacted sand with Rail spike fewer gravels 42-86 No data 86-96 Gray Iron oxide mottled course sand 96cmbs dark with gravel looser sand with less gravel 100-104 Dark black Fire sand with charcoal/coal lens, increasingly looser sand with silt and iron oxide mottling 130 Black Heavy mottled sand with fewer 150cmbs slag lenses of black rock, charcoal/coal 170-180 Reddish Loose moist silty sand no Terminated at brown pebbles 180cmbs Appendix D Historic Property Inventory Forms 4DEOMTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION rYc:esf the Rit tkye Mee h�,^ Historic Inventory Report Location Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: BNSF Bridges 9.7X A and B Property Address: 0 Vicinity of Monster Rd S, Tukwila, WA Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) DAHP No. Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec County Quadrangle T23R04E 14 King DES MOINES Coordinate Reference Easting: 1207566 Northing: 785555 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: King County Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway Owner Address: 4515 Kansas Avenue City: Kansas City State: KS Classification: Structure Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: Date Recorded: 04/09/2011 Zip: 66106 Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 1 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Transportation - Rail -Related Plan: Rectangle Stories: N/A Changes to Plan: Slight Changes to Original Cladding: Not Applicable Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: None Foundation: Concrete - Poured Stone Narrative Cladding: None Form/Type: Bridge - Steel Girder Study Unit Transportation Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1905 Built Date 1988 Addition Current Use: Transportation - Rail -Related Structural System: Steel Changes to Interior: Not Applicable Changes to Windows: Not Applicable Roof Type: Roof Material: None Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of Significance: None The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) bridges 9.7X A and B were evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources study completed for Segment A of the King County Lake to Sound Trail project along the former Black River in the vicinity of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The paired bridges were originally constructed in 1905 with subsequent modifications in 1988. In 1988, BNSF replaced the bridges' original southernmost 20-foot timber trestle spans with new concrete tee girder spans (Hale 2011). These bridges are believed to have replaced an even older 1895 structure, as evidenced by the existing bridge's north abutment, which is stamped with an 1895 construction date. The first railroad in the area was the Seattle -Walla Walla Railroad, constructed in 1875. Built with the funding and labor of Seattle citizens, its primary purpose was to transport coal from mines in the vicinity of the city of Renton to Seattle. The railroad ran south from Seattle along the existing BNSF right of way through the Duwamish River Valley and turned east at the Black River and Duwamish River confluence (immediately north of the present 9.7X A and B bridges) to run along the north bank of the Black River to Renton. The Northern Pacific Railway purchased this railroad in 1880 and changed its name to the Columbia and Puget Sound Railway (Larson 1996). Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 2 of 7 i ._ DEPARTME4TOF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION jun!**Pal,racpe}heh . Historic Inventory Report Three years later, the Northern Pacific Railway built an additional railroad line to connect its transcontinental system with Seattle. This line ran south from the "Black RiverJunction" along the existing BNSF right of way to the city of Auburn. An original railroad bridge across the Black River was presumably constructed at this time. A high berm consisting of gravel and rock ballast was constructed to support the railroad tracks above the level of potential flooding, and the line passed through the former bed of White Lake just south of the overcrossing. The Seattle to Auburn railroad line eventually became known as the "Orphan Road," due to there being only one or two daily trains on the route. The limited runs were reportedly the result of the Northern Pacific Railway's preference to provide service to Tacoma rather than Seattle (Larson 1996). The Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway constructed an electric -powered railroad line to the west and parallel to the Northern Pacific Railway's orphan line beginning in 1905. It: is likely the existing bridges 9.7X A and B were constructed as part of this endeavor, replacing the older 1895 railroad bridge in this location. A third line, a branch of the "Milwaukee Road," was constructed east of the Northern Pacific Railway line in 1907, crossing the Black River via a third railroad bridge (Larson 1996). This third bridge was replaced in 2010 by the existing railroad bridge located immediately east of bridges 9.7X A and B (Hale 2011). The BNSF bridges 9.7X A and B were evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As is typical, the railroad lines supported by the bridges have been subject to continuing maintenance and upkeep as necessary since their installation, including the replacement of ties, rails, and ballast. The bridges have been similarly modified, most notably by the 1988 improvements when their southernmost spans were replaced. The bridges otherwise retain good integrity and appear essentially unaltered. The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the bridges are eligible for listing in the NRHP. Bridges 9.7X A and B are plate girder type bridges, which represent a common bridge type in Washington, particular along railroad lines. The Northern Pacific Railroad standardized plans for the construction of girder type bridges in the late nineteenth century, which were revised circa 1899. The American Railway Engineering Association likewise published standardized specifications for bridge design in 1903. Bridges 9.7X A and B appear to be common examples of their type and are not known to have historical associations that would warrant special recognition. Based on our review, the bridges have good integrity, but do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Description of The property contains a connected pair of two 226-foot plate girder bridges that have identical Physical standardized designs. Each bridge consists of one 32-foot deck -plate girder and two 77-foot through -plate Appearance: girder spans that were built with the original bridge in 1905. In addition, the bridges are flanked on the north and south by approximately 20 foot girder spans. The northernmost spans consist of a timber trestle supported by steel beams and a coursed masonry abutment constructed in 1895. On the south, each bridge has 20-foot concrete tee girder spans that were built in 1988, replacing timber trestle spans from the original bridge. The bridges support two north -south alignments of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, which cross the Black River in this location. The spans are supported by three wide poured concrete piers, which each provide support to both bridges. The plate girders rest on cast steal expansion bearings, supporting an open deck of floor beams and stringers. Riveted steel flanges flank the tracks of each bridge. Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 3 of 7 4DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION ' rinette.r4reY.rre Major Bibliographic References: Historic Inventory Report Hale, Jason C., P.E., Manager Structure Design, BNSF Railway. Personal communication, 7 April 2011. Ketchum, Milo Smith. Structural Engineers' Handbook: Data for the Design and Construction of Steel Bridges and Buildings. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1924. Larson, Lynn L., et. al. King County Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Division, Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project, Allentown Site (45KI431) and White Lake Site (45KI438 and 45KI438A) Data Recovery. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. 7 June 1996. Merriman, Mansfield, and Henry Sylvester Jacoby. A Text -Book on Roofs and Bridges: Part III, Bridge Design. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Robertson, Donald B. Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume III. Western Society of Engineers. Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, Volume 6. Chicago, IL: Western Society of Engineers, January to December 1901. Wity, Peter J. To the Columbia Gateway: The Oregon Railway and the Northern Pacific, 1879-1884. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, 1987. Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 4 of 7 MENT Of AE OGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION ward Le Rffi, Skre theFhuc Photos East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2011 Southern Pier, Looking West 2011 Bridge Support, Looking Northwest 2011 Bridge, Looking North 2011 Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 5 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Bridge, Looking North 2011 Bridge, Looking Southwest 2011 Historic Inventory Report Central Pier, Looking West 2011 Bridge, Looking North 2011 Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 6 of 7 rt DE (kRTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report East Bridge, Looking North North Abutment, Looking Northwest 2011 2011 Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 7 of 7 DEPARTMENTOF ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Fromcf the Hzt arse rye Fe ra Historic Inventory Report Location Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Pipeline Utility Bridge Property Address: 0 Vicinity of Monster Rd S, Tukwila, WA Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) DAHP No. Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec County Quadrangle T23R04E 14 King DES MOINES Coordinate Reference Easting: 1207620 Northing: 785549 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: King County Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Structure Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: Date Recorded: 04/09/2011 Zip: Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 1 of 5 4 -- - DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY E. HISTORIC PRESERVATION frwacfireRe,svrerlev . Description Historic Use: Other Plan: None Historic Inventory Report Stories: N/A Changes to Plan: Not Applicable Changes to Original Cladding: Not Applicable Changes to Other: Extensive Other (specify): Poured Concrete Deck Style: Cladding: None Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Study Unit Science & Engineering Date of Construction: None Form/Type: Bridge - Pre -stressed Concrete 1940 Built Date 1975 Remodel Current Use: Other Structural System: Concrete - Reinforced Concrete Changes to Interior: Not Applicable Changes to Windows: Not Applicable Roof Type: Roof Material: None Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No None Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 2 of 5 ..,,, DEPARTMENT OF 4 ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION FtztvfPerot .4k¢Ihehh._ Historic Inventory Report Statement of The pipeline utility bridge was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources study completed for Significance: Segment A of the King County Lake to Sound Trail project along the former Black River in the vicinity of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The pipeline utility bridge, which consists cf a single pipeline carried on a poured concrete overpass, was originally constructed sometime between 1940 and 1964, according to its appearance in aerial photographs. The structure also appears to have been largely replaced or shortened circa 1975, as evidenced by a 1980 aerial photograph. The existing poured concrete, flanged deck (supporting the pipe) appears to date from this period. The support columns, which are ferrous metal piles, appear to be elements from the original 1940s structure. The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the pipeline utility bridge is eligible for listing in the NRHP. The bridge no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance, largely due to the changes to its support structure circa 1975. The original 1940s era pipeline utility bridge was substantially altered with the construction of the existing flanged deck, resulting in distinct changes to the bridge's length, width, and overall design. The pipeline utility bridge otherwise is not known to have historical associations that would warrant special recognition. Based on our review, the pipeline utility bridge has poor integrity, and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Description of The property contains a single pipeline utility bridge that spans the Black River. The bridge consists of a pre - Physical stressed, reinforced, poured concrete deck with a flanged design, supported by two pairs of fluted, Appearance: ferrous metal columns. The deck was constructed as an alteration to the bridge circa 1975, replacing an older, longer structure. It consists of three segments, joined at the column supports, and forming three angled planes as it passed over the Black River. Two pipelines traverse the bridge, elevated above the deck by poured concrete blockings. The columns are capped by poured concrete structural elements, which support the deck, and are likely piles that have been pounded downward to form a footing. The columns also appear to be the only elements that remain from the bridge's original construction. The column bases are encapsulated within poured concrete piers, likely added to provide additional support circa 1975. Major Bibliographic References: Aerial Photograph, 1940. Electronic clocument: http://www.historicaerials.com. Aerial Photograph, 1964. Electronic clocument: http://www.historicaerials.corn. Aerial Photograph, 1980. Electronic document: http://www.historicaerials.com. Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 3 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Pipe Ultility Bridge, Looking North 2011 Pipe Ultility Bridge, Looking East 2011 Pipe Ultility Bridge, Looking Northeast 2011 Underside of Bridge, Looking North 2011 Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 4 of 5 t0AMENTOf AISTORI OLOGY & iHISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report; Underside of Bridge, Looking North 2011 Pipe Ultility Bridge Columns, Looking Southwest 2011 Friday, April 22, 2011 Page 5 of 5 FINAL DRAFT Cultural Resource Survey Memorandum for the Amended APE for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, King County, Washington Prepared for: Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98104 Report #KI-01-15 February 11, 2015 Prepared by: Bethany K. Mathews, Project Archaeologist Sarah J. Amell, M.M.A., RPA Principal Investigator Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants 5518 Trosper Lake St SW Tumwater, Washington 98512 www.AquaTerraCRC.com Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Regulatory Compliance 3 Consultation 4 Area of Potential Effects and Project Description 4 Background Research 9 Environmental Setting 9 Cultural Setting 9 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Studies and Sites 10 Cultural Resources Fieldwork 13 Expectations 13 Geotechnical Bore Monitoring 13 Field Investigation 13 Results and Recommendations 17 References Cited 18 Appendix: Consultation Correspondence 21 Figure 1. Project location. 5 Figure 2. Cultural resources survey of Segment A amendment of Lake to Sound Trail. 6 Figure 3. Proposed bridge profile drawing provided by Parametrix, with cut and fill annotation by ATCRC. 7 Figure 4. Proposed project plans provided by Parametrix. 8 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies conducted within a one -mile radius of the APE... 11 Figure 6. Archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the APE 12 Figure 7. Geotechnical boring in progress. 14 Figure 8. STP 1 profile 14 Figure 9. Cultural resources survey results. 15 Figure 10. View of northern APE toward drill location, east of Monster Road Bridge. 16 Figure 11. Ceramics and glass from STP 5 16 ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page ii Cultural Resource Survey Memorandum for the Amended APE for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, King County, Washington Executive Summary Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants (ATCRC) was contracted by Parametrix to conduct a cultural resource assessment for the proposed Amended APE of Segment A on the Lake to Sound Trail (the project). King County proposes to develop the Lake to Sound Trail which would connect the southernmost point of Lake Washington to Puget Sound through the cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac, Burien, and Des Moines, Washington. The amended project site is situated in the city of Renton, King County, Washington, in Section 13 of Township 23 North, Range 4 East. This amendment to the trail requires the construction on a 114 foot long pedestrian bridge over the Black River, and approximately 100 feet of trail. The Lake to Sound Trail is a joint partnership between these cities and King County. The trail is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting King County with FHWA funding and acting on behalf of FHWA as the lead federal agency. Regulatory compliance for the project is managed by the King County Roads Services Division. FHWA funding mandates that the project be conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effect of undertakings on historic properties that are or may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In accordance with Section 106, ATCRC's cultural resource assessment included background research, field survey, and preparation of this report. No historic properties were encountered during this review. As such, ATCRC recommends the determination of No Historic Properties Affected for this undertaking. Regulatory Compliance This project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and the implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. An historic property is typically aged 50 years or older and is defined in 36 CFR part 800.16(1)(1), as follows: ... any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. The procedures under Section 106 generally require the federal agency involved in the undertaking to identify the area of potential effects (APE), inventory any historic properties that may be located within the APE, and determine if the identified historic properties located within ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 3 the APE may be eligible to be listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An APE is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), as follows: ... the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. If NRHP eligible historic properties are identified within the APE then potential adverse effects to the historic properties must be assessed, and a resolution of adverse effects recommended. Consultation A cultural resource survey was completed for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail in 2011 by ICR International. This survey resulted in a recommendation of "No Historic Properties Affected," and ICF recommended cultural resource monitoring for construction of the trail in the vicinity of archaeological site 45KI438. Following those recommendations, the project description was amended to include a pedestrian bridge crossing the Black River near the Monster Road vehicular bridge. Under Section 106, the responsible federal agency must, at minimum, consult with and seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), as applicable, and consult with any affected or potentially affected Native American Tribe(s). On November 19, 2014 WSDOT initiated this consultation process by sending project scope of work letters to Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe, Snoqualmie Nation, and Yakama Nation. On December 3, 2014 DAHP concurred with the definition of the amended APE (Log No. 092810-19-FHWA). To date, ATCRC is not aware of any response from the notified tribes. Consultation correspondence is included in the Appendix to this report. Area of Potential Effects and Project Description The area of potential effects (APE) for this project spans the Black River immediately north of Monster Rd SW, Renton, King County, Washington (Figures 1-2). The APE is located in King County parcels 722950-0281 and 3779200119. The project consists of a 114 foot pedestrian bridge and approximately 100 feet of trail (Figures 3-4). Ground disturbance will occur up to a depth of two feet across the APE for grading and a depth of up to 60 feet at bridge abutments. Staging and construction access will be confined to the previous or amended APEs of the Lake to Sound Trail. ATCRC Report #KI-0I-15 Page 4 Adaery tsi a x20 .. -Hunt s.. Clyde Point Hul ;a� Normandy ,ntand Park • Des F;ir+rn�r�, ;ice Laver Credits: Sources. I. v: ;'• ESRI. TANA, AND Sources. Esn."rklorme, NAV-t r(r TomTom. foreman. iPC. USC'S I o<r \PS, NRCAN, GeoRase, IGN, Kadasier NL. Ordnance Surs es. t us Japan. METI, Esn China (Hong Kenpt_ and the GIS User Community Sources: Esrt, Del gripe. t*S. N Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants Yarrow Pool Medina Bellevt 1- 0� BeauxArts �ILv 8r` SPdl�rge Seatac s/ / 2 to n 3 J Kent 4 N AltAiIIk0 V.ut cotsv Sun;s H eilinghau, Victari a Se Lonvitws East Renton Highlands rYe rm-t , td oh= ft�fe WASHHINGTON /akiuse Richland Spokan Pre -.;ton Airratmont `0 l YL Oft Mou et, Hobart R avensdale Miles 10 12 14 16 IS Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, Amendment Project Vicinity Legend + Project location 1:250,000 Figure 1. Project location. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 5 Aqua Terra Cultural Rcsource ( unsultunts Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, Amendment Cultural Resources Survey Legend Negative shovel test probes C) HWA geotechnical bore 0 Amended APE 1:2,000 Figure 2. Cultural resources survey of Segment A amendment of Lake to Sound Trail. ATCRC Report #KI-41-15 Page 6 1L. 9Z"9Z 9'9Z ? 9f'9Z 99Z f9'LZ L'9Z 0 6 96'a � £"9Z L 6'BZy, l'9Z '" 9L"6Z S'92 A ri trot S►'OC� 6Y9£ '9£ St 6Z 9'[Z 1 J lL 0 Figure 3. Proposed bridge profile drawing provided by Parametrix, with cut and fill annotation by ATCRC. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 ,+ y "1, '•�, �„�� Figure 4. Proposed project plans provided by Parametrix. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Background Research The probability for historic properties to be located within the APE is based on a review of environmental and cultural settings and local cultural resource studies and sites. ATCRC's review includes project files, local geologic data, and cultural resources records available on the King County Cultural Resource Protection Program database and DAHP's Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database. Environmental Setting The APE is located in Renton, WA, at the southern end of the Puget Lowland. The Puget Lowland is a physiographic province that was shaped by several periods of extensive glaciation during the Pleistocene (Lasmanis 1991). The bedrock was depressed and deeply scoured by glaciers. Sediments were deposited and often reworked as glaciers advanced and retreated and glacial till and outwash deposits were left across much of the region at the end of the last glacial period (Snyder et al. 1973). The Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation began around 18,000 BP with an advance of the Cordilleran ice sheet into the lowlands (Porter and Swanson 1998). The Puget Lobe of the ice sheet flowed down into the Puget Lowland and reached its terminus just south of Olympia between 14,500 and 14,000 BP (Clague and James 2002). The Puget Lobe began to retreat shortly after reaching its terminus. Marine waters entered the lowlands that had been carved out by the glacier and filled Puget Sound. The remaining ice was floated and wasted away rapidly. Glaciomarine drift deposits were released from the melting glacial ice and deposited on the sea floor across the northern and central Puget Lowland causing the land to rebound and relative sea levels to fall and expose glacial outwash deposits (Clague and James 2002). About 11,600 to 10,000 BP, the Cordilleran ice sheet advanced once again leaving glacial till and outwash deposits in much of northwestern Washington (Easterbrook 2003). The project is located on the Black River, near its confluence with the Duwamish (Green) River. The Natural Resource Conservation Service web soil survey records alluvial deposits throughout the APE from the Woodinville silt loam, Puyallup fine sandy loam, and Newberry silt loam series (NRCS 2015). Cultural Setting The APE is located in the traditional territories of the contemporary Duwamish and Muckleshoot (Smith 1940:10-11, Spier 1936:42). The Duwamish occupied the Duwamish River valley from the river mouth to the Black and Cedar Rivers as well as near present day Renton and Maple Valley (Ruby and Brown 1986:72). The Muckleshoot consist of several groups including the Skopahmishes, Smulkamishes and Skekomishes, and occupied the White and Green River valleys (Ruby and Brown 1986). Precontact settlements of the Duwamish and Muckleshoot, like other Coast Salish groups, were often located along major waterways and at heads of bays or inlets, where abundant resources of coastal, riverine and also inland environments supported a relatively rich, diverse, and reliable subsistence base. During the winter months they lived in large villages of cedar plank houses ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 9 while the spring and summer months were spent at seasonal encampments often constructed of reed mats while fishing, hunting, and plant and berry collecting. Salmon was a principle resource (Ruby and Brown 1986). Early economies were also supported by inland resources such as goats, deer, and elk, especially for the Muckleshoot (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). Several ethnographic sites are recorded along Lake Washington and Black River (Hilbert et al 2001:95- 101). Following the arrival of non -natives in Puget Sound by the mid-1850s, and subsequent negotiations between Tribal groups and the U.S. Government in 1855, Tribal groups ceded their territorial lands to the U.S. Government. The Duwamish were assigned to the Port Madison Reservation and other Indian groups living along the Green and White Rivers were forced to the Nisqually Reservation. In 1856, the Muckleshoot Reservation was established (Ruby and Brown 1986:141). The first non-native settlement in King County is credited to the Collins, Van Asselt, and Maple families in 1851. In 1862, the United States government passed the Homestead Act, which granted 160 acres to individual U.S. citizens, as an effort to encourage non-native settlement following the Indian War of 1855 — 1856. By the 1860s, timber and mining sparked local population growth, however, by the 1880s, timber supplies began to decline eventually to be replaced with agriculture as the primary economy. Railroads were extended to the area by the 1890s providing transportation of goods and people, making Renton an important economic center (Kirk and Alexander 1990). Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Studies and Sites The DAHP WISAARD and King County Cultural Resource Protection Program databases were accessed to determine if the APE had been previously surveyed and if any archaeological sites, ethnographic places, historic buildings, historic properties, or cultural resources were recorded within one -mile of the APE. The APE is located within one mile of twelve previously completed cultural resource assessments, however none of these projects recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the APE (Figure 5). The APE is immediately adjacent to the cultural resource assessment for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail (Fernandez et al. 2011). Fernandez et al. 2011 excavated shovel test probes 550 meters to the northeast, and 500 meters west of the current APE. No National Register eligible or diagnostic cultural resources were encountered in that assessment. The DAHP statewide predictive model records the APE as a very high risk area with survey advised. Several archaeological sites are recorded within one mile of the APE (Figure 6). These include a railroad grade immediately north of the APE, and several local precontact and ethnographic villages and campsites. There are numerous structures listed in the Historic Properties Inventory Register database within a one -mile radius of the APE, however no historic structures are located in the immediate vicinity of the APE. No cemeteries are located within one mile of the APE. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 10 The King County Cultural Resource Protection Program database records 10 ethnographic sites within one mile of the APE. The APE is situated on the eastern boundary of the Kho-al-ky village site, which was located on both sides of the Black River near its confluence with the Duwamish River in the early twentieth century. This dense record of ethnographic sites along the Duwamish and Black Rivers reflects the traditional importance of these water bodies and suggests a high probability for encountering archaeological sites in the vicinity of the APE. Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies conducted within a one -mile radius of the APE. Author Title Recommendations Proximity to APE Fernandez Cultural Resources Survey et al. 2011 Report Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Monitoring and Includes portion of APE avoidance of 45KI438 Ellis and Archaeological Monitoring at No further assessment 100 ft west Erickson Three Locations for the Level 3 recommended 2000 Construction Project from the Lewis River to Seattle Courtois Sound Transit Central Link No further assessment 800 ft west 1998 Light Rail Draft EIS Historic recommended within and Archaeological Resources APE Technical Report Lewarch et al. 1996. King County Department of Natural Resources Water Pollution Control Division Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project Allentown Site and White Lake Site Data Recovery Avoid adverse effects 850 ft southwest Bangs 1996 Cultural Resource Monitoring No further assessment 1000 ft southeast of the Waterworks Project at recommended King County's East Division Reclamation Plant, Renton Lewarch Letter to Jacquelynn Roswell No further assessment 1300 ft southwest 1998 Regarding King County Fort recommended Dent Park Reclaimed Water Irrigation Project, Assessment of Revised Construction Plans and Potential Cultural Resources Cagle 2012 An Archaeological Survey of No further assessment 1600 ft southwest the Sanft Property, Tukwila, recommended King County ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 11 Author Title Recommendations Proximity to APE Trudel et al. 2004 South Treatment Plant Cogeneration Facility Archaeological Resources Assessment Archaeological monitoring of native sediments 1900 ft southeast Robbins 2000 Letter to Edward MacLeod Regarding Fort Dent Park Soccer Fields #7 and #8 Improvement Project Cultural Resource Assessment, Tukwila No further assessment 2500 ft southwest recommended Forsman 2002 Proposed Foster Golf Course Clubhouse Archaeology Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment, City of Tukwila Archaeological monitoring of native sediments 4000 ft east Shong Letter to Mike Giseburt RE: 2014 Addendum to the Cultural Resources Overview for the SW 7th St.Naches Ave SW Storm System Improvement Project, Renton Archaeological monitoring of native sediments 4000 ft east Cooper Letter to Rick Still Regarding 2003 Archaeological Monitoring of Foster Golf Course Clubhouse Demolition No further assessment 4500 ft northwest recommended Figure 6. Archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the APE. Smithsonian Number Site Type NRHP Status Proximity to APE 45KI00538 Railroad grade Potentially eligible 100ft north 45KI00438 Sgoa'lgo winter village Eligible 800ft southwest 45KI00267 Olcott lithic scatter Not evaluated 1500ft southeast 45KI00768 Railroad grade Potentially eligible 3000 ft south 45KI00006 Shellfishing camp Not evaluated 4000 ft south 45KI00516 Ethnographic campsite Not evaluated 1 mile northwest 45KI00059 Precontact campsite Not evaluated 1 mile east ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 12 Cultural Resources Fieldwork On January 6, 2015 ATCRC conducted geotechnical bore monitoring and a cultural resources field investigation. ATCRC assumed the APE was located in an area of high probability for encountering cultural resources, and thoroughly surveyed the project area. No significant cultural resources were identified, and project excavations will primarily impact imported fill materials. Expectations Based on ATCRC's review of local cultural resource studies, and environmental and cultural contexts, the APE is considered to be located in an area of high probability for historic properties. The local concentration of ethnographic places and archaeological sites suggests any excavation along the Black River near the confluence with the Duwamish may impact unrecorded subsurface archaeological deposits. Thorough pedestrian survey and sub -surface testing were necessary to study potential project impacts. Geotechnical Bore Monitoring Geotechnical boring was conducted on January 6, 2015 by HWA Geosciences, Inc. (Figure 7). ATCRC staff monitored geotechnical boring throughout the day. Bore castings from 0-30 feet below surface were screened through '/4" hardware cloth screens. HWA discovered that fill materials extended to approximately 15 feet below surface. No cultural resources were identified during geotechnical bore monitoring. Field Investigation Field investigation was also conducted on January 6, 2015 by ATCRC staff. Field investigation for this project consisted of pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. The entire APE was visually inspected along 10-meter interval transects. Eight shovel test probes (STPs) were spaced approximately 30 meters apart across the APE in order to identify any subsurface cultural resource deposits. STPs were excavated to a depth of 40cm on average. Typical STP profiles consisted of the following: Strata I- a thin dark soil layer likely spread by the restoration project covering the southern APE; Strata II- 10 cm loose silt loam with angular gravels; Strata III- 30+ cm highly compact silt loam mixed with rip rap and modern refuse (Figure 8). The results of the subsurface investigation are recorded in Figure 9. The APE is located in an urban landscape, with a large King County facility on the east, a rail line and access road on the north, and Monster Road and bridge on the south and west (Figure 9). Modern refuse was common in the excavated fill material. Four of the eight STPs contained refuse materials that were identified as modern or not diagnostic to an historic period. These materials included plastics, brick and mortar, a wire nail, clear bottle glass fragments, and whiteware ceramics (Figure 11). ATCRC was only able to locate a small area of native sediments buried beneath 45cm of fill in STP 6, in the northwest portion of the APE. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 13 Figure 7. Geotechnical boring in progress. Figure 8. STP 1 profile. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 14 Figure 9. Cultural resources survey results. Shovel Test Northing Easting Depth of Cultural Probe Excavation Resources 1 5258215 556832 60cm Plastic at 35cmbs 2 5258210 556726 55cm Plastic, clear bottle glass (n=1), large wire nail (n=1), brick/mortar fragment (n=1) at 35cmbs 3 5258215 556749 55cm Clear bottle glass (n=1) at 35cmbs 4 5258226 556756 40cm None identified 5 5258238 556714 33cm Water worn clear bottle glass (n=4), whiteware ceramic fragments (n=2) at 0-35cmbs 6 5258236 556695 90cm None identified 7 5258230 556665 26cm None identified 8 5258224 556781 43cm None identified Geotechnical drill 5258207 556711 30 feet None identified ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 15 Figure 10. View of northern APE toward drill location, east of Monster Road Bridge. Attuirriania Ato aum swans �r rsLBW 15101101111111 / /1 RWM 1r111/IF ■. 1W ISIONISinnie 111_i Figure 11. Ceramics and glass from STP 5. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 16 Results and Recommendations Background review suggests the APE is located in an area of high probability for historic properties. No evidence for subsurface cultural deposits was encountered in the APE. During ATCRC's survey and monitoring of the geotechnical drilling, it was discovered that fill deposits extend to 15 feet below surface. Thus, project excavations will impact imported fill materials. As such, ATCRC recommends the determination of No Historic Properties Affected for this undertaking and no further archaeological assessment is recommended. If the construction design changes or additional ground disturbing work is required for the Lake to Sound Trail project, consultation should be reinitiated to determine if additional study is warranted.. No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for prehistoric sites, historic properties or TCPs associated with a project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from our analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature and information identified in this report, and on our reconnaissance -level field investigation and observations as described herein. Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions and interpretations in this report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report. They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which ATCRC is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 17 References Cited Bangs, Eric W. and Lynn L. Larson 1996 Cultural Resource Monitoring of the Waterworks Project at King County's East Division Reclamation Plant, Renton, Washington. On file at DAHP. Cagle, Anthony J. 2011 An Archaeological Survey of the Sanft Property, Tukwila, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP. Clague, John J., and Thomas S. James 2002 History and Isostatic Effects of the Last Ice Sheet in Southern British Columbia. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:71-87. Cooper, Jason 2003 Archaeological Monitoring of Foster Golf Course Clubhouse Demolition, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP. Courtois, Shirley L., Katheryn H. Krafft, Catherine Wickwire, James C. Bard, and Robin McClintock 1998 Link Central Light Rail Transit Project Seattle, Tukwila, and SeaTac Washington Final Technical Report, Historic and Archaeological Resources. On file at DAHP. Easterbrook, Donald J. 2003 Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine Glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington. In Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas, ed. T. W. Swanson, pp. 137-157. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Ellis, David V. and Lori Erickson 2000 Archaeological Monitoring at Three Locations for the Level 3 Construction Project from the Lewis River to Seattle. On file at DAHP. Fernandez, Trish, Alan Abramowitz, and Patrick Reed 2011 Cultural Resources Survey Report Lake to Sound Trail Segment A. On file at DAHP. Haeberlin, Hermann and Erna Gunther 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology No. 4(1):1-83. Hilbert, Vi, Miller, J. and Z. Zahir. 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Lushootseed Press. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 18 Kirk, Ruth and Carmela Alexander 1990 Exploring Washington's Past: A Road Guide to History. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Lasmanis, Raymond 1991 The Geology of Washington. Rocks and Minerals 66:262-277. Lewarch, Dennis E. 1998.King County Fort Dent Park Reclaimed Water Irrigation Project, Assessment of Revised Construction Plans and Potential Cultural Resources. On file at DAHP. Lewarch, Dennis E., Lynn L. Larson, Leonard A. Forsman, Guy F. Moura, Eric W. Bangs, and Paula Mohr Johnson 1996 King County Department of Natural Resources Water Pollution Control Division Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project Allentown Site (45KI431) and White Lake Site (45KI438 and 45KI438A) Data Recovery. On file at DAHP. Natural Resource Conservation Service 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205-213. 2015 Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ Accessed 5 January 2015. Porter, S. C. and T. W. Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205-213. Robbins, Jeffrey R. and Amy E. Dugas 2000 Fort Dent Park Soccer Fields #7 and #8 Improvement Project Cultural Resource Assessment, Tukwila, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP. Roedel, Kurt W., Leonard A. Forsman, Dennis E. Lewarch, Lynn L. Larson 2002 Proposed Foster Golf Course Clubhouse Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP. Ruby, R.H. and Brown J.A 1986 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Shong, Michael and Christian Miss 2014 Addendum to the Cultural Resources Overview for the SW 7th St./Naches Ave SW Storm Water Improvement Project, Renton, King County, Washington. On file at DAHP. ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 19 Smith, Marian W. 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 32, Columbia University Press, New York. Snyder, D.E., Gale, P.S., and Pringle, R.F. 1973 Soil Survey of King County, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State. Spier, Leslie 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, Number 3. George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, Wisconsin. Trudel, Stephanie E., Dennis E. Lewarch and Lynn L. Larson 2004 South Treatment Plant Cogeneration Facility Archaeological Resources Assessment, City of Renton, King County, WA. On file at DAHP. ATCRC Report #KI-0I-15 Page 20 Appendix: Consultation Correspondence 1. King County notice of amended APE to WSDOT, November 17, 2014 2. WSDOT notice of amended APE to Muckleshoot Tribe, November 19., 2014 3. WSDOT notice of amended APE to Puyallup Tribe, November 19, 2014 4. WSDOT notice of amended APE to Snoqualmie Nation, November 19, 2014 5. WSDOT notice of amended APE to Yakama Nation, November 19, 2014 6. WSDOT notice of amended APE to DAHP, November 19, 2014 7. DAHP notice of APE concurrence to WSDOT, December 3, 2014, Log 092810-19-FHWA ATCRC Report #KI-01-15 Page 21 King County Road Services Division Environmental Unit Department of Transportation KSC•TR-0231 201 South ladtson Street Seattle, WA 98104.3856 yr w.tdnpcounty.gov/roeds November 17, 2014 Phil Segami Assistant Local Programs Engineer Northwest Region Washington State Department of Transportation P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 RE: Federal Aid Project Number CM-2017(110) Agreement No. LA 7150 Lake to Sound Trail Cl? R43049 Segment A National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. APE Amendment Dear Mr. Segami: Please find enclosed for your review an amended APE for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, in the cities of Renton and Tukwila, King County, Washington. The previously evaluated APE for the proposed trail is being revised to reflect the addition of a pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The original APE reflected a trail route that utilized an existing motor vehicle bridge. The existing vehicular bridge has been determined incompatible with Parks multiuse trail design and safely criteria. The proposed pedestrian bridge will be constructed adjacent to the existing vehicular bridge. Ground disturbance will occur to a depth of up to two feet across the APE for grading and a depth of up to sixty feet at the bridge abutments. All staging and construction access will occur within the previous or amended APE. Please see enclosed Vicinity Map and APE Amendment Map. No historic resources were identified at or adjacent to the APE amendment during the completed Section 106 inventory reported in 2011. However, the Black River valley is a high probability area for unknown buried intact archaeological deposits and no shovel probes were placed in the area currently being proposed as a bridge location. After this APE amendment has been reviewed and approved, a field inventory, including screened shovel probes, will be conducted. Shovel probes may also be placed within the previous APE to reflect the additional depth of disturbance for bridge construction. An addendum to the Section 106 inventory report for the trail will then be prepared and submitted for your agency's review and transmittal to the consulting patties. Do not hesitate to contact me or Tom Minichillo (206-477-3550) if you have any questions or require any additional information in order to review this submittal. Please provide us with copies of correspondence with reviewing agencies and tribal governments for our project files. Thank you very much for your assistance with this project. cc: Tom Minichillo, KC RSD, Archaeologist Tina Morehead, KC RSD, Environmental Engineer Jason Rich, KC Parks, Project Manager encl : Vicinity Map, APE Map Lake to Sound Trail Segment A APE Amendment Amended APE for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A shown in red. The existing APE is in yellow wi �a}nq elua2ew e 7' Washington State Department of Transportation Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation Ms. Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe 39015 172" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Dear Ms. Murphy: November 19, 2014 Transportation Building 310 Mae Park Avcri..a S.E, P.0 BOK 47300 Olymp.:, WA 9E3504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY 1-800-833-63B8 wa, • wsdol • /a gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project, Segment A Revised APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) As you know, King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. Enclosed please find a copy of the revised area of potential effects (APE) for Segment A of King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail. The County is adding a pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Ground disturbance will be about two feet below surface for grading and up to 60 feet below surface for the bridge abutments. I look forward to your comments on the revised APE by 19 December 2014. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Puyallup, Snoqualmie, and Yakama Indian tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.v.a.gov. Sincerely, Trent de Boer WSDOT Archaeologist Local Programs Division TD:ac cc: Honorable Virginia Cross, Muckleshoot Tribal Chairperson Lindsey Handel, FHWA, MS 40943 Ed Conyers, Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer 7 " Washington DepartmentSotfaltnsportation Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation Mr. Brandon Reynon Puyallup Tribe 3009 Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98404 Dear Mr. Reynon: Transporthtion Building 310 Marec Pcrit Avenue S E PO Box 47300 0ympa WA 98504-7300 360-705-1000 November 19, 2014 TTY: 1-803 833-6388 vo.vw.wsd3t wa, gay King County Lake to Sound Trail Project, Segment A Revised APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) As you know, King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. Enclosed please find a copy of the revised area of potential effects (APE) for Segment A of King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail. The County is adding a pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Ground disturbance will be about two feet below surface for grading and up to 60 feet below surface for the bridge abutments. I look forward to your comments on the revised APE by 19 December 2014. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie, and Yakama Indian tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert®wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Trent de Boer WSDOT Archaeologist Local Programs Division TD:ac cc: Honorable Bill Sterud, Puyallup Tribal Chairperson Lindsey Handel, FHWA, MS 40943 Ed Conyers, Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer Washington State V® Department of Transportation Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation November 19, 2014 Mr. Steven Mullen -Moses Snoqualmic Nation P0Box 969 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Dear Mr. Mullen -Moses: Transportation Building 310 Map!a Park S E PO Box 97300 O ymp:a. WA 98504-7300 360-705.7000 TlY 1.8C0•B33-i388 ww• ,r.Cot w.i.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project, Segment A Revised APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) As you know, King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. Enclosed please find a copy of the revised area of potential effects (APE) for Segment. A of King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail. The County is adding a pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Ground disturbance will be about two feet below surface for grading and up to 60 feet below surface for the bridge abutments. I look forward to your comments on the revised APE by 19 December 2014. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, and Yakama Indian tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, rent de Boer WSDOT Archaeologist Local Programs Division TD:ac cc: Honorable Carolyn Lubenau, Snoqualmic Tribal Chairperson Lindsey Handel, FHWA, MS 40943 Ed Conyers, Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer Washington State VW Department of 'Transportation Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation Mr. Johnson Meninick Yakama Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dear Mr. Meninick: November 19, 2014 Transportation Building 310 Map's Park Avenue S E. PO Box 47300 Olympri. WA 98504-7300 360-705 7000 TTY. 1-800 8316389 v ww wsdot wa.gov King County Lake to Sound Trail Project, Segment A Revised APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) As you know, King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environment& compliance documentation. Enclosed please find a copy of the revised area of potential effects (APE) for Segment A of King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trait. The County is adding a pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Ground disturbance will be about two feet below surface for grading and up to 60 feet below surface for the bridge abutments. I look forward to your comments on the revised APE by 19 December 2014. Similar letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, and Snoqualmie Indian tribes. Should you have any questions about this project, please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, 4-7 Trent de Boer WSDOT Archaeologist Local Programs Division TD:ac cc: Honorable JoDc Goudy, Yakama Tribal Chairperson Lindsey Handel, FHWA, MS 40943 Ed Conyers, Northwest Rcgion Local Programs Engineer kifr Washington State Department of Transportation Lynn Peterson Socratary of Transportation November 19, 2014 Dr. Allyson Brooks Washington State I•Iistoric Preservation Officer Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Dear Dr. Brooks: Tronaporrotion 8u67ding 310 M.‘p!e Parr A *erne S E PO. Box 47330 0 y.'r p a, WA a65OG • 7303 3so-ros-: ac3 m' 1 803 633-6388 %r.::Y vr.7dat I,a goy King County Lake to Sound Trail Project, Segment A Revised APE Fed Aid # CM-2017(110) DAMP Log # 092810-19-FHWA As you know, King County is proposing to construct a trail with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Programs Division is assisting the County and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. Enclosed please find a copy of the revised area of potential effects (APE) for Segment A of King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail. The County is adding a pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Ground disturbance will be about two feet below surface for grading and up to 60 feet below surface for the bridge abutments, 1 look forward to your comments on the revised APE by 19 December 2014. Similar letters were sent to the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, Snoqualmie, and Yakama Indian tribes. Please contact me at (360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov if you have any questions. Trent de Boer WSDOT Archaeologist Local Programs Division TD:ac Enclosure cc: Lindsey Handel, FHWA, MS 40943 Ed Conyers, Northwest Region Local Programs Engineer DEPARTMENT Of ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION December 3, 2014 Mr. Trent de Boer WSDOT, Local Programs PO Box 47390 Olympia, WA 98504-7390 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 092810-19-FHWA Property: Lake to Sound Trail Re: Archaeology - APE Concur Dear Mr. de Boer. Allmon Brooks Ph.D.. (rector Slate HIstorlc Preservation Ulcer & Local Programs DEC 0 4 2014 Otympr3. WA We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A project. Thank you for your description of the revised area of potential effect (APE) for the project. We concur with the definition of the revised APE. We look forward to the results of your cultural resources survey efforts, your consultation with the concerned tribes, and receiving the addendum survey report. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4) and the survey report when it is available. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information becorne available, our assessment may be revised. Please note that DAHP requires that all historic property inventory and archaeological site forms be provided to our office electronically. Also, please note that DAHP requires that all cultural resource reports be submitted in PDF format on a labeled CD or electronically. For further information please go to http://www.dahp.wa.gov/documents/CR_ReportpDF_Requirement.pdf. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Matthew Sterner, M.A. Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3082 matthew.stemen@dahp.wa.gov Sing of Wnthinntrtn • lLevwl...••..+.d 6rr1.o•••..fww.• ! Ut ' . CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Sarah J. Amell Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey of the Amended APE for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Date of Report: February 11, 2015 County(ies): King Section: 13 Township: 23 North Range: 4 East Quad: Renton, WA PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) F Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? n Yes I1 No Archaeological Siie(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? n Yes Fl No TCP(s) found? n Yes f7 No Replace a draft? n Yes Ft No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? n Yes 17 No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of paper copy is required. • Please submit paper copies of reports unbound. • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Prepared for King County King County March 2016 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared for King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com nn___L ^tn.c I crn irni nen CITATION Parametrix. 2016. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. March 2016. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1-1 1.1 APPLICATION 1-1 1.1.1 Name 1-1 1.1.2 Brief Description of Project 1-1 1.2 PROJECT CONSISTENCY REVIEW 1-4 1.2.1 Applicability to City of Tukwila Shoreline Policies 1-4 1.2.2 Applicability to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44, Shoreline Overlay District Criteria 1-6 1.3 NO NET LOSS CHECKLIST RESPONSES 1-15 2. VARIANCE 2-1 2.1 CRITERIA FOR SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM VARIANCE (TMC 18.44.130D) 2-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Vicinity Map 1-3 APPENDICES A Application Checklists B Application Signature Pages C SEPA Checklist D Site Plan and Cross Sections E Civil Plans -----L.,n,c I rce ,e„ non Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CAR Critical Areas Report Cities cities of Renton and Tukwila WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration SMP Shoreline Master Program TMC Tukwila Municipal Code LDR Low Density Residential HI Heavy Industrial DCD Department of Community Development ANLA American Nursery and Landscape Association SMA Shoreline Management Act USDA United States Department of Agriculture DBH diameter breast height BMP best management practices Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT This chapter addresses City of Tukwila Submittal Requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit including responses to the Application, Project Consistency Review, and No Net Loss. The City of Renton is the SEPA lead for this project; therefore, the application for the checklist is not included as part of this submittal. Attached is supporting documentation as follows: Appendix A — Application Checklists for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix B —Application Signature pages for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix C — SEPA Checklist Appendix D — Shoreline Site Plan and Cross Sections Appendix E — Civil Plans (including Landscape Plan — Sheets MP1 and MP6) Supporting environmental reports are provided separately. These include the Critical Areas Report (CAR), Stream Discipline Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Technical Information Report for Drainage and Floodplain, and No Effect Letter. 1.1 Application 1.1.1 Name Lake to Sound Trail 1.1.2 Brief Description of Project King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges (BNSF and Union Pacific) to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see 90-percent plans). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.1.2.1 Location The location is a linear corridor from the Green River Trail in Tukwila to the west to Naches Avenue SW in Renton on the east. The trail enters Tukwila jurisdiction between two rail bridges, south of the Black River. The portion of the proposed trail in Tukwila is approximately 600 linear feet, following an existing access road (in Fort Dent Park), a well -trodden earthen pathway in the vicinity of the railroad, and maintained lawns associated with the Star Fire Soccer Complex and Fort Dent Park. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. See Figure 1-1. 1.1.2.2 Tax Lot Numbers Parcel number 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 722950-0350, 232304-9005 1.1.2.3 Project Value Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. is approximately $2,100,000. 1.1.2.4 Development Coordinator Name: Jenny Baily, Parametrix Address: 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-394-3656 Fax: 855-542-6353 Email: jbailey@parametrix.com 1-2 TAnrrk 1,11g I CCA_1Cl1_(14A City Boundary c w w J Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.2 Project Consistency Review 1.2.1 Applicability to City of Tukwila Shoreline Policies This section is dedicated to a narrative discussion on how this project is consistent with or implements the applicable Shoreline Master Program goals and policies as found in Chapter 6 of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), Attachment A to Ordinance 2344. If not specifying the larger project, references to "project" refer to the section of the proposed trail in the City of Tukwila, not trail segments outside the Tukwila Jurisdiction. The following includes excerpts from Chapter 6 of the SMP followed by a discussion of how this project aligns with said goals or policies (response text in blue). Text from Chapter 6 of SMP Policy 5.1.2, Urban Conservancy Environment: In the Urban Conservancy Environment priority shall be given to the following: • Development that promotes vegetation conservation and enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and preservation of water quality to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter removed within the shoreline zone will be replaced as prescribed per TMC 18.44.080 requirements. • Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent use, and uses that prevent and/or minimize flood damage; The project will not increase the amount of fill in the 100-year floodplain (cuts and fills are balanced, with no net fill); therefore, the project will minimize the potential for flooding. • Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control, consider impacts to public views, and allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration; This project will not interfere with navigation and flood control, not impact public views, and allow for fish and wildlife passage. • Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the land and water that do not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. The trail is designed to integrate into the existing landscape with as little alteration as possible. The proposed paved trail will follow an existing dirt path and will generally follow existing contours and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and discharge locations. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The project will replant with native vegetation as prescribed in the TMC 18.44.080. • Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and when ecological impacts can be mitigated; 1-4 11A..-.I. 011.G I Ern ,r„ non Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The trail also connects directly to the Green River Trail and indirectly to the Interurban Trail and Cedar River Trail. The Toss of trees will be mitigated per TMC 18.44.080. 6.6 Access and Recreational Use, Comprehensive Plan Goal 5.6 Goal: Increase the amount and diversity of opportunities for public recreation and access to and along the river, including visual and cultural access, access to the water's edge, opportunities for small boat navigation and access, and connections to other neighborhoods, consistent with the shoreline character. The proposed trail is part of a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see 90-percent plans). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. This trail is consistent with the shoreline character. The portion of the proposed trail in the City of Tukwila connects to the existing Green River trail, is adjacent to a park (Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park), and utilizes an informal dirt trail currently utilized by pedestrians. • Policy 5.6.1: Retain and improve areas identified as important in the network of public access to the river, including cross-town connections, former railroad right-of-ways and unimproved street -end right-of-ways, historic sites, unique natural features or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. • Policy 5.6.4: Design, locate and manage public access for diverse types and variable levels of intensity in order to minimize impacts on vulnerable features of the natural environment and to minimize conflicts with private property uses. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County The proposed trail will provide non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others of all ages and capabilities. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography 1:o the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed trail is 12-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders, which is a smaller footprint than what is required under TMC 18.44.100 (A)(1), but still in compliance with regional standards given the anticipated uses and volumes of trail users. The only private property use in the project vicinity is the BNSF railroad operation. The trail would pass beneath an existing rail bridge, avoiding conflicts with this use. 1.2.2 Applicability to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44, Shoreline Overlay District Criteria The following section describes the project's consistency with Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) as it relates to the Shoreline Overlay District. If not specifying the larger project, references to "project" refer to the section of the proposed trail in the City of Tukwila, not trail segments outside the Tukwila jurisdiction. 1.2.2.1 Permitted Uses Consistency with TMC 18.44.030 — Shoreline Use Matrix The proposed project is consistent with TMC 18.44.050. Consistency with TMC 18.44.050 — Urban Conservancy The proposed project extends through an Urban Conservancy Environment. It is consistent with TMC 18.44.050 (B)(1)(d): d. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails. Consistency with Underlying Zoning The proposed project extends through property zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and Heavy Industrial (HI). Low Density Residential (LDR) (18.10.020 (3)] The proposed project is a permitted use per Low Density Residential 18.10.020 (3): 3. Public parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds, but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. Heavy Industrial (HI) (18.10.020 (3)] The proposed project is a permitted use per Heavy Industrial (HI) 18.34.020 (37): 37. Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public), but not including amusement parks, golf courses or commercial recreation. TA-... 1.1/l1L I con c-s1 lion Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.2.2.2 Development Standards Urban Conservancy Development Standards [TMC 18.44.070C] 1. Standards. The following standards apply in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environments. a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. As described above, the project is consistent with the underlying zoning. b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi family, commercial, or industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access Section. The proposed trail extends along the Black River and through Fort Dent Park, and connects to the Green River Trail, inherently providing public access. See Appendix D, which includes the site plan. Structures Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(K). 2. Setbacks and Site Configuration. a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable shoreline environment. Not applicable. The proposed activity is the construction of a trail. b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM. Not applicable. The proposed activity does not involve a fishing pier, viewing platform, or other outdoor feature providing access to the shoreline. 3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water - dependent uses and their structures, to preserve visual access to the shoreline and avoid massing of tall buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction, the maximum height for structures shall be as follows: a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer; Within the 125 foot Urban Conservancy buffer, BNSF has requested that the trail poi:entially be covered within 30 feet of the overhead railroad bridge to prevent debris from falling on trail users. if required, the cover will be 10 feet above the trail for vertical clearance. b. 45 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM. No structures are proposed in this area. c. Provided, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15% increase in height if the project proponent provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County and/or enhanced in order to obtain the 15% increase in height in accordance with TMC Section 18.44.080, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." Not applicable. The proposed project is a trail. No building structures are proposed. 4. Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in TMC Chapter 18.60, "Board of Architectural Review," lighting for the site or development shall be designed and located so that: a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be one foot candle. b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on the river channel, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off -site illumination. c. The general grounds need not be lighted. d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan. Not applicable. The proposed trail design does not include lighting. 1.2.2.3 Vegetation and Landscaping The proposed project is consistent with the SMP's vegetation and landscaping requirements (per TMC 18.44.080). Clearing and grubbing in the Shoreline will likely occur in late spring/early summer, which will involve the removal of trees including significant trees. Please see the civil plan sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E for an understanding of trees proposed for removal and proposed landscaping and associated planting quantities. The following discusses the applicable elements of the code to this project. 8. Tree Protection, Retention and Replacement. 1. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development or re -development, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part of design review, the Director of Community Development or the Board of Architectural Review may require alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river. The trail alignment was selected to follow the existing topography where feasible, and to integrate into the existing landscape. The vegetation that overhangs the Black and Green Rivers will not be removed. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. 2. To protect the ecological functions that trees and native vegetation provide to the shoreline, removal of any significant tree or native vegetation in the Shoreline Jurisdiction requires a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and is generally only allowed on sites undergoing development or re- development. This project is considered "development" and therefore is allowed to remove significant trees and native vegetation per TMC 18.44.080. -R AAo.,-I. 1,11 G I CEA_I c71 410A Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 3. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community Development (DCD) containing the following information: a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all significant trees and all existing native vegetation. b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees required. c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to be retained for sites undergoing development or re -development. d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any sensitive areas with their buffers. e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation. f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD. g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution. Please see the civil plan sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E for an understanding of trees proposed for removal and proposed landscaping. 4. Where permitted, significant trees that are removed from the shoreline shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements shown below, up to a density of 100 trees per acre (including existing trees). The Director or Planning Commission may require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to mitigate any potential impact from the Toss of this vegetation as a result of new development. Diameter* of Tree Removed Number of Replacement Proposed Number of Trees (*measured at height of 4.5 feet from the ground) Trees Required for On -Site Replacement 4-6 inches (single trunk); 2 inches (any trunk of a multi -trunk tree) 3 3 Over 6-8 inches 4 8 Over 8-20 inches 6 30 Over 20 inches 8 16 5. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. The revegetation area will be monitored during and after construction. Replaced trees that do not survive will be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. 6. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off -site tree replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off -site tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off -site location is available, the applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund. The fee shall be based on the value of the Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County replacement trees and their delivery, labor for site preparation and plant installation, soil amendments, mulch, and staking supplies. This requirement is noted. 7. When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed tree(s) to a location designated by the City. if no restoration project or storage location is available at the time, the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the Transition Zone. This requirement is noted. 8. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the public. Although no wildlife snags were observed, if encountered at the time of construction, they will be preserved if they do not present a hazard. 9. Topping of trees is prohibited unless absolutely necessary to protect overhead utility lines. Topping of trees will be regulated as removal and tree replacement will be required. No trees will be topped because of this project. 10. For new development or re -development where trees are proposed for retention, tree protection zones shall be indicated on site plans and shall be established in the field prior to commencement of any construction or site clearing activity. A minimum 4 feet high construction barrier shall be installed around significant trees and stands of native trees or vegetation to be retained. Minimum distances from the trunk for the construction barriers shall be based on the approximate age of the tree (height and canopy) as follows: a. Young trees (have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 feet per inch of trunk diameter. b. Mature trees (have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk diameter. c. Over mature trees (have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per inch of trunk diameter. The project will establish tree protection zones as described on sheet TESC1 and on Detail 1 on sheet D3 in the Civil Plan set (Appendix E). C. Landscaping. 1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation must be removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank. a. The landscaping requirements of this subsection apply for any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except: single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots. The extent of landscaping required will depend on the size of the proposed project. New development or full redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be carried out. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed per the approved tree permit, if required. nmrrh /nu I cc n_icli_nun Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County The proposed trail will primarily follow the existing access road (in Fort Dent Park) and a well -trodden earthen pathway in the vicinity of the railroad. The remaining portions of the trail will be constructed on maintained lawn. Existing areas disturbed by construction activities and not shown to be re -vegetated on the plans will be restored and reseeded. Trees that are removed will be replaced according to the ratios and specifications described in TMC 18.44.080. b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted, including the river bank. Existing areas disturbed by construction activities and not shown to be revegetated on the plans will be restored and reseeded with appropriate vegetation. If in an area of existing maintained lawn, the disturbed areas will be reseeded in kind. c. On properties located behind publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the buffer. This requirement is noted. d. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the slope stability of the bank will be maintained and a plan must be submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and tree protection features will be utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment. Please see construction notes on sheet MP1 of the civil plan set. e. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required. No placement of riprap or tree canopy shading the river will occur for this project in the City of Tukwila. f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such phasing is provided for by a plan approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion. Invasive vegetation removal, using the proper approach for the existing conditions, will occur in the areas of proposed plantings. g. A combination of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers (including grasses, sedges, rushes and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004 Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification. Sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package includes a table showing the plant material list including quantity to be planted, botanical and common name, size, and spacing. i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and Landscape Association — ANLA). All plants shall be nursery grown a minimum of one year. Commercial nurseries that specialize in plants native to the Pacific Northwest will supply the plantings. Plant substitutions are subject to approval by a Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County project representative. Plantings will meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANLA). This has been included in the notes in on sheet MP1 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. j. Plant sizes in the non -buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following minimum size standards: Deciduous trees 2-inch caliper Conifers 6-8 foot height Shrubs 24 - inch height Groundcover/grasses 4-inch or 1 gallon container Replacement plantings will occur in the Urban Conservancy Buffer. k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2- inch in diameter. Please see planting details on sheet MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. 1. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the vegetation's long-term health and survival. This has been included in the planting notes in on the General notes to sheet MP1 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access to the water's edge. Comment noted. n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species. Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according to the approved maintenance plan. Please see response to TMC 18.44.080(B)(5). o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.B.4. and must be replanted in a timely manner, except where a long term removal and re -vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being implemented. Please see the planting density table on sheet MP1 of the civil plan set. Invasive vegetation removal, using the proper approach for the existing conditions, will occur in the areas of proposed plantings. 2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments. The River Buffer in all shoreline environments shall function, in part, as a vegetation management area to filter sediment, capture contaminants in surface water run-off, reduce the velocity of water run-off, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. a. A planting plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist shall be submitted to the City for approval that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a landscape architect or biologist may be waived by the Director for single family property owners (when 1-1 Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County planting is being required as mitigation for construction of overwater structures or shoreline stabilization), if the property owner accepts technical assistance from City staff. Please see sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package. b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless site conditions would make planting unsafe. Please see sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package for planting details. c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature. Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations. Proposed plantings are primarily upland species, sited on the top of the bank. Please see sheets MP1 and MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set submitted with this application package for planting details. d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.C.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density calculations. Plant spacing for the proposed landscaping plan follows the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080 (c)(2). Please see the table on sheetMl of the 90 percent civil plan set. e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are established. An irrigation plan is to be included as part of the planting plan. This has been included in the planting notes on sheet MP6 of the 90 percent civil plan set. D. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction. 1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline ecological function. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. Topping of trees is prohibited except where absolutely necessary to avoid interference with existing utilities. No topping would occur, but it is likely pruning will occur in order to maintain clearance along the trail. 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. This has been included in the planting notes on sheet M1 of the 90 percent civil plan set. 3. Use of pesticides. a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline jurisdiction except where: (1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species; (2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest management and monitoring plan; (3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations; Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County (4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing by the City and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. This requirement is noted. 1.2.2.4 Public Access The project will be consistent with applicable public access requirements (per TMC 18.44.100) as follows: A. Applicability 1. Public access shall be provided on all property that abuts the Green/Duwamish River shoreline in accordance with this section as further discussed below where any of the following conditions are present: d. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands. This is a public trail project lead by King County Parks in cooperation with the City of Tukwila, City of Renton, the WSDOT, and the FHWA. 8. General Standards 1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide: a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle connections between proposed development and the river's edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or other approved trail system; and As a multi -use trail, this project will provide a safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized connection to the Green River through connectivity with the Green River Trail. b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge; and No portion of the multi -use trail in the City of Tukwila will be adjacent or near a street right of way. c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be accomplished through the use of special paving materials such as precast pavers, bomonite, changes in color or distinct and detailed scoring patterns and textures. No portion of the multi -use trail in the City of Tukwila will be adjacent or near a street right of way. 4. Approved signs indicating the public's right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public access may be approved as a condition of permit approval. The proposed multi -use trail will be clearly marked with signage as a bike and pedestrian pathway at its intersection with the Green River Trail. 5. Required access must be maintained throughout the life of the project. Access will be maintained throughout the life of the project. 1-14 f.A.r.L. 111G 1 CCA_1 C11. f14A Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park, or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed to accommodate logical future connections. Segment A is adjacent to Fort Dent Park and will connect with the Green River Trail. As described previously, it will become part of a larger planned regional trail system. C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section 18.44.100(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows: 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage to meet the standards of a 14-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. The proposed project is requesting a variance from the size requirement as specified) in TMC 18.44.100 (C) (1). The proposed project plans to construct a trail that is 12-foot wide with 2-foot shoulders on each side. As a trail in a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail system, the proposed trail width will be compatible with other sections of the trail and will comply with King County's policy for trail width on trails with an anticipated usage of greater than 2,000 users per day (2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines). 1.3 No Net Loss Checklist Responses This section is dedicated to a narrative discussion on how this project is consistent with No Net Loss as defined in the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The following includes excerpts from the No Net Loss Checklist contained in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application package followed by a discussion of how this project aligns with said goals or policies (response text in blue). 1. Describe the existing condition of the shoreline area and riverbank. For example, what plants and how much vegetation currently exist within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction; what is the condition of the shoreline (how steep are the banks, is there any erosion or slope failure, what are the soils like); is there "hard armoring" on the riverbank (for example, concrete or wooden bulkheads, metal sheet piling, rip - rap (rocks or concrete/asphalt blocks]), is there paving or are there any structures within the 200 ft. shoreline jurisdiction; are there any docks, piers, decks or other structures near or over the water; are there any above -ground or below ground utilities; etc.? [For ease of review, the above paragraph is divided into topics, see below] What plants and how much vegetation currently existing within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction? The buffer vegetation along the Black River within the project area (Station 1+00 to Station 7+65) ranges in density and width. In the area of Fort Dent Park, within approximately 10 to 30 feet of the Black River, the vegetation is dense. The understory is comprised of invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) intermixed with native shrubs. The native shrubs include willow (Salix spp.) directly adjacent to the river, and small shrubs and trees further upslope consisting of beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Mature trees in this area include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). With the exception of an access road composed of compacted tire track, the remainder of the vegetated shoreline consists of maintained grass with a healthy population of mature trees intermixed with trees planted within 5 to 10 years. Species include Douglas fir, American Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Permit Narrative and Justification King County sycamore (Platanus accidentalis), black cottonwood, American elm (Ulmus americana), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum). Some of the trees planted within the last 5 to 10 years are stressed, dying, or dead — likely due to the drought -like conditions the region has been experiencing in recent years. The mature trees appear healthy. Vegetation in the vicinity of the railroad is mostly invasive Himalayan blackberry and bare earth. The remaining buffer is developed with playing fields, a parking lot associated with the playing fields, the existing Green River trail, and the railroad. These man-made features extend into the 125-foot buffer and dominate the remaining area within shoreline jurisdiction. The mix of vegetation offsite, along the Green River is similar to what is found directly adjacent to the Black River except a bit narrower, about 10-15 feet. The Green River trail bisects the vegetated buffer from the project site. The remaining 125-foot buffer is as described in the previous paragraph for the project site. What is the condition of the shoreline (how steep are the banks, is there any erosion or slope failure, what are the soils like)? Slopes directly adjacent to the Black River and Green River are steep, approximately 2:1. No erosion or slope failure is evident, which is likely due to the density of vegetation. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) characterizes the soils as Newberg silt loam, which is typically found in floodplains. This type of soil has good drainage. Above the banks, where the trail is proposed, the landform is relatively flat with small undulations. Is there "hard armoring" on the riverbank (for example, concrete or wooden bulkheads, metal sheet piling, rip -rap [rocks or concrete/asphalt blocks])? No hard armoring is evident along the riverbank. The Green River trail is on a levee. Is there paving or are there any structures within the 200 ft. shoreline jurisdiction? Areas of paving are located within 200 feet of the shoreline. Paved areas include the Green River Trail, and a parking lot. There is also a soccer playing field that is surfaced with field turf and an elevated rail bridge owned by BNSF. Are there any docks, piers, decks or other structures near or over the water; are there any above -ground or below ground utilities; etc.? The railroads and one utility are the only over -water structures within the project area. 2. How will your project change the existing condition of the shoreline described above? In the City of Tukwila, the project will change the existing condition of the shoreline by removing trees and constructing a paved 12-foot wide multi -use trail with 2-foot shoulders. A total of 15 trees will be removed. None of the trees along the densely vegetated riverbanks will be removed, only the trees in the grassy area. Of the 15 trees, 10 significant trees (per TMC 18.06.776) will be removed. The remaining trees are big leaf maples that are 2-3 inches at diameter breast height (DBH), not multi-trunked trees. Please see the civil plan set sheets M1 and M6 in Appendix E showing trees identified for removal and areas where they will be replaced per TMC 18.44.080. 1-16 March 2016 1554-1521-M14 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 3. Please respond to the questions in the following chart - A No Net Loss analysis (prepared by a qualified biologist) must be prepared if the response to any of the questions in the chart below is "yes": Will The Project: No Yes a. Alter/remove vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction? X b. Alter the river bank (i.e. re -slope bank, add armoring etc.)? X c. Add fill in the shoreline jurisdiction? X d. Discharge new stormwater to the river? X e. Store or use hazardous materials in the shoreline jurisdiction? X f. Construct an in- or over -water structure? X g. Increase impervious surface in the shoreline jurisdiction? X 4. The way to achieve no net loss of ecological function is to mitigate the loss through one or a combination of the mitigation sequencing steps identified below. If preparing a No Net Loss analysis, please discuss how your project addresses the following mitigation sequencing steps (TMC 18.44.070 H.3.): a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing critical area and buffer impacts to the greatest extent feasible with no permanent or temporary impacts to the Black or Green Rivers anticipated. The trail alignment was selected to follow the existing topography where feasible, and to integrate into the existing landscape. The proposed paved trail will largely follow an existing dirt path and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and infiltration. Construction activities will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The proposed project will adhere to the applicable tree protection, retention, and replacement ratios as described in TMC 18.44.080 including the installation of native plantings. To ensure the plantings are successful, the project will comply with applicable vegetation management requirements specified in TMC 18.44.080 (D). All temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. King County will apply the following additional strategies to critical area and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: • Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground -disturbing activities. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 2. VARIANCE This chapter addresses City of Tukwila Submittal Requirements for a Shoreline Variance. Please see Section 1.1 for the Application information. Attached is supporting documentation as follows: Appendix A — Application Checklists for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix B — Application Signature pages for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix C — SEPA Checklist Appendix D — Shoreline Site Plan and Cross Sections Appendix E — Civil Plans (including Landscape Plan —Sheets MP1 and MP6) Supporting environmental reports are provided separately. These include the CAR, Stream Discipline Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Technical Information Report for Drainage and Floodplain, and No Effect Letter. 2.1 Criteria for Shoreline Master Program Variance (TMC 18.44.130D) This project is requesting a variance from TMC 18.44.100(C)(1), which specifies a 14-foot wide trail with 2-foot shoulders. This project proposes to construct a trail that is 12-foot wide with 2-foot wide shoulders. The following section includes the review criteria for the Shoreline Master Program Variance (TMC 18.44.130D) followed by a justification narrative (narrative text in blue). A. Criteria for a variance for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland: The proposed Segment A trail will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and no wetlands will be permanently or temporarily affected as a result of this project. 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in TMC 18.44 preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The construction of a public trail is permitted in the Urban Conservancy Buffer per TMC 18.44.050; however, the trail size, as specified in 18.44.100 (C)(1) is incompatible with the 16-mile Lake to Sound Corridor, which calls for a 12-foot wide trail with 2-foot shoulders. This would result in incompatibility with the other multi -use portions of the regional trail system, and result in greater shoreline impacts than is necessary for a safe, functional trail. 2. The hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of TMC 18.44 and not from the owner 's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity within the shoreline and zone in which the property is situated. No special property characteristic or SMP requirement prevent the construction of this trail in the manner of adjacent properties or other like -zoned properties in the shoreline jurisdiction. Rather, the City of Tukwila design standard for trail width (14-foot wide with 2-foot shoulders) is inconsistent with the proposed design of the planned Lake to Sound 16-mile regional trail network (12-foot wide with 2- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County foot shoulders). As a King County -driven project with regional significance, the proposed trail is sited in multiple jurisdictions including the cities of Tukwila, Renton, SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and King County. To provide continuity between the multiple jurisdictions, King County selected a trail design that is compatible with King County's 2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 2012), the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO 2004), the WSDOT Design Manual, and best professional judgment based on what we have seen work in other locations. To change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface. 3. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. There are no inconsistencies with the proposed alignment of Segment A with the goals and policies contained within the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan. The majority of the proposed alignment of Segment A is located in a public recreation overlay as identified in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. It is compatible with several goals and policies as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan as described below: Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.1:Parks, recreation opportunities and open spaces that are close to home and/or work and that are interconnected by safe streets, off-street trails and public transportation. Goal 6.2: A Network of Green Spaces — Recreational amenities, historical sites, rivers, wetlands, creeks, and other natural resources that are connected to each other and neighboring networks of lands. This network defines Tukwila as a Northwest city, and includes visually significant bands of vegetation that contrast with the built environment. Policy 6.2.1: Non -motorized transportation links between network lands Shoreline Master Plan Please see Section 1.2.1 of this report for an understanding of the proposed trail's consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other shoreline properties in the area. The variance does not provide special privilege. It will result in a trail that is consistent with other connecting trail elements. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. This reduction in trail sizing is the minimum necessary to afford relief. This variance requests to construct a 12-foot trail in lieu of a 14-foot trail in keeping with the vision of the Lake to Sound 2-2 nA,rrh lnu I CCA_1c11_nnn Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County Feasibility Study, the design of the portion of Segment A that extends into neighboring City of Renton, and the remaining, planned 16-mile multi -use segments of the Lake to Sound trail. As described previously, to change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. This project is highly compatible with the surrounding uses. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. The proposed trail is also consistent with the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. Appendix A Application Checklists COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST 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 each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials, once deemed complete, allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. APPLICATION MATERIALS: X 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. X 2. Completed Application Form (page 7) and notarized Hold Harmless Agreement (page 9) (5 copies). X 3. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule for Standard App fee. X 4. Project Value Documentation. X 5. Public Notice Materials and fee. See item A (page 4) for details. X 6. Project Description/Analysis (5 copies) and other environmental reports (2copies). See item B (page 4) for details. X 7. Drawings (5 copies) Additional copies may be required upon determination that the application is complete: a). Site Plan See item C (page 4) for details. X b). Site Cross Sections along the shoreline . See item D (page 5) for details. X c). Landscape Plans. See item E (page 5) for details. X d). Civil Plans. See item F (page 5) for details. e). Other plans to help explain the project such as elevations, lighting plan, signage etc. See item G (page 6) for details. X 8. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17". X 9. An electronic copy of all project application materials. X 10. Other land use applications, as applicable: SEPA Environmental Checklist, Design Review Application (see TMC 18.44.110 for review criteria), Special Permission, Director, for buffer reduction requests. A. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: X 1. Payment of notice board fee (see Land Use Fee schedule) to Fast Signs Tukwila or Provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). X 2. Pay the fee as established by the Land Use Fee Schedule for generating mailing labels; Or provide CPL Page 2 of 10 07/17/2014 10:16 AM Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. an excel spreadsheet of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Each unit in multiple family buildings e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks --must be included. Once your project is assigned to a planner, you will be required to provide an electronic copy of the mailing label spreadsheet in the following format: Name, Street Address, City St Zip, with each of these fields as an individual column: Name Street Address City, St, Zip Mr. Smith 1234 Park Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of whether you pay the City to generate the mailing labels or you provide them, there is an additional fee for postage and material as listed under Public Notice Mailing Fee on the Land Use Fee Schedule. You will receive a separate bill for this fee and payment is due prior to issuance of the decision. 3. If providing your own labels, indude King County Assessor's map(s) which highlights each property within 500 feet of the project, and are included on the mailing list. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS: X 1. Vicinity Map with site location - does not have to be to scale. X 2. Provide: a) a written discussion of project consistency with the Review Guidelines(see page 11), or a reference on plan sheets illustrating compliance with the Review Guidelines; and b) a response to the No Net Loss Checklist (see pages 13-14). Check with a planner if you are unsure what criteria apply to your project. X 3. Provide two copies of sensitive area studies if needed per TMC 18.44.090 D (Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the shoreline jurisdiction section of the SMP). 4. Provide an analysis of river bank stability if alteration of the riverbank is proposed. See TMC 18.06.696 for the definition of a riverbank analysis and report. X 5. Provide two copies of any other studies prepared for the project (Biological Assessment etc.). C. SHORELINE SITE PLAN: X 1. The site plan must indude a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. Maximum size 24" x 36". X 2. Identify existing top of bank, landward and riverward toe of levee (or toe of bank if no levee), ordinary high water mark and base flood elevation (i.e., the 100 year flood). X 3. For work riverward of the OHWM: Distance work extends into the river and distance to Federal projects and navigation channels. X 4. Identify the location of the shoreline buffer (measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark) applicable to the shoreline environment in which the project is located: • Shoreline Residential Buffer - show where the top of the river bank would be at a 2.5:1 slope from OHWM and add twenty feet. If there is not enough room on the parcel for this buffer, the minimum buffer width is 50 ft.; • Urban Conservancy Buffer —100 ft. non -levee area; 125 ft. in leveed area; • High Intensity Buffer -100 ft. • The Aquatic Environment includes the area waterward of the OHWM and does not have an identified buffer. CPL Page 3 of 10 W.\\I nno Rano,. Prniertc\Rhnrrline\New Shrtreline Prrmite\d_l1_1, RRIIP P.rm it 07/17/2014 10:16 AM Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. 5. Show any levee/riverbank maintenance easements. X 6. Construction limit lines and areas of clearing/grading/filling. See TMC 18.44.070 j for land altering regulations. Removal of any significant trees or native vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction requires a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit. X 7. Show public access and/or trails per TMC 18.44.100. X 8. Show building footprint, parking lots, driveways, loading and service areas. See TMC 18.44.070 I for parking regulations. X 9. Identify any sensitive areas and their buffers, as applicable. D. CROSS -SECTIONS FOR SHORELINE PROJECTS X SHORELINE CROSS SECTIONS at maximum 75' intervals along the shoreline showing: 1. Existing and proposed elevations and improvements; 2. Limits of the applicable shoreline buffer and 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, as measured from the OHWM; 3. The top of bank elevation, landward catch point toe of levee, riverbank toe, ordinary high water mark and base flood elevation (i.e., the 100 year flood as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Administration - FEMA), and levee/ riverbank maintenance easement and the location of the to . of bank at a 2.5:1 slope. E. LANDSCAPE PLAN: X 1. Landscape planting plan by a Washington State licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist. Plans must indude the type, quantity, spacing and location of all plantings, soil preparation and amendment, irrigation, weed management, mulching and maintenance plan. Invasive vegetation must be removed and native vegetation planted. Maximum size 24" x 36". See TMC 18.44.080 for requirements. X 2. Show all existing trees over 4" in caliper, indicating those to be retained, those to be removed and any tree protection measures required. Any trees removed over 4" in caliper are subject to the replacement requirements of TMC 18.44.080 B.4. X 3. Provide notes on landscaping sheets that address consistency of landscaping with requirements of TMC 18.44. F. CIVIL PLANS: X 1. One set of all civil plans and analyses shall be stamped, signed and dated by a licensed professional engineer. Include a graphic scale and north arrow. Maximum size 24" x 36". X 2. Vertical datum NAVD 1988 and horizontal datum NAD 83/91. Conversion calculations to NGVD 1929, if in a flood zone or flood -prone area. See www.tukwilawa.gov/pubwks/bulletins/cablist.html Bulletin A7 and related documents for further information. 3. Existing (dashed) and proposed (solid) topography at 2' intervals. X 4. Construction limit lines, areas of clearing/grading/filling including volume and type of expected cut and fill. X 5. Existing and proposed utility easements and improvements. X 6. If additional impervious surface is proposed, provide a storm drainage design at least 90% complete, which meets the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). For guidance on preparation of the Technical Information Report contact the Public Works Dept. or go to: www.tukwilawa.gov/pubwks/pwpermit.html#SURFWATER. CPL Page 4 of 10 W-\\I nno Ranch. Prniarte\chnralinP\Na11, Chnn.lino Po.,,,ito1A_11 _11 CC nu. 07/17/2014 10:16 AM Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. See also TMC 18.44.070 D for additional surface water regulations. X 7. Show the 100 yr. flood plain boundary and elevation as shown on FEMA maps which are available at the Tukwila Public Works Department counter. X 8. Show all site improvements including footprints of all existing and proposed buildings, paved areas and any shoreline stabilization structures proposed in the shoreline. See TMC 18.44.070 E. X 9. Show fences, rockeries and retaining walls. X 10. Show docks and other overwater structures. See TMC 18.44.070 K. G. OTHER PLANS: 1. If new construction is proposed, provide dimensioned and scalable building elevations with keyed colors and materials. Show mechanical equipment and/or any proposed screening. 2. If site lighting changes are proposed, provide a luminaire plan including location and type of street and site lighting. Include proposed fixture cut sheets, site light levels (foot-candles), and what measures will be used to shield adjacent properties and the river from glare. 3. All existing and proposed signage with sign designs and locations. See TMC 18.44.070 L. X 4. Any other drawings or materials needed to explain your proposal. CPL Page 5 of 10 W \\Long Range Proieets\Shnreline\New Shoreline Permits \4-1 I-I2 SSDP Permit 07/17/2014 10:16 AM COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST 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 each department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until the application is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: ✓ 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. ✓ 2. Completed Application Form and drawings (4 copies). ✓ 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". ✓ 4. Completed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property (1 copy attached). ✓ 5. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule. The applicant is also responsible for paying the Hearing Examiner costs before issuance of the decision. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: ✓ 6. Payment of notice board fee to FastSigns (see Land Use Fee Schedule) Tukwila OR provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 7. Pay the fee as established by the Land Use Fee Schedule for generating mailing labels; OR provide an excel spreadsheet of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Each unit in multiple family buildings e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks --must be included. Once your project is assigned to a planner, you will be required to provide an electronic copy of the mailing label spreadsheet in the following format: Name, Street Address, City St Zip, with each of these fields as an individual column: Name Street Address City, St, Zip Mr. Smith 1234 Park Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of whether you pay the City to generate the mailing labels or you provide them, there is an additional fee for postage and material as listed under Public Notice Mailing Fee on the Land Use Fee Schedule. Payment of this fee is due prior to issuance of the decision and you will receive a separate bill for this fee. 8. If providing own labels, include King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: ✓ 9. A written discussion of project consistency with the review criteria found on pages 6-8 of this Application. This is your opportunity to present the merits of your request. ✓ 10. Any additional drawings or information needed to explain or support the variance request. Maximum size of any drawing is 24" x 36". SITE PLAN: ✓ 11. (a) The site plan must include a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. Maximum size 24" x 36". ✓ (b) Existing and proposed building footprints. ✓ (c) Vicinity Map with site location; does not have to be to scale. ✓ (d) Highlight the change being requested through the variance. ✓ (e) Parking lots, landscape areas and other site improvements. 1 (f) Fences, rockeries and retaining walls with called out colors, height and materials. ✓ (g) For a shoreline variance, identify the location of the ordinary high water mark, the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, and the location of the applicable shoreline buffer (Residential, Urban Conservancy or High Intensity). Appendix B Application Signature Pages • CITY OF TUK ILA Department of community Development 6300SouthcenterBoulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Phis Type: P-SHORE Planner: File Number: Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OFPROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A BRIE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See 1.1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, ifvacata, indicate !offs). block and subdivision, access Street, and nearest intersection. See 1.1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tux statement or NT t Paps. net). Parcel number 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 232304-900,1, 722950-0350, 232304-9005 PROJECT VALUE (PLEASE ATTACH DOCUMENTATION): $3,000,000 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/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: Jason Rich, King County Address: 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-277-4582 FAX: ,,o6. 93s . Sn 1 f E-mail: jason.rich@kingcounty.gov Signature: \>) _ ? `� Date: CPL Pagc 6 of 10 W: ong Range Pmjecs'SharctmetNew Shorc1ine Permits \4-1 1-12 SSDP 07/17/2014 10 16 AM CITE OF TU.KWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard,Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 43I-3670 ZONING CODE OR SHORELINE VARIANCE APPLICMO P7OR STAFF USE :.ONLY;' `Perrni#s Plus Type. P PAlts <: ; ,' Planner: File Number: Application Complete Date: Project File Number: Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPIV,ENT: Lake to Sound Segment A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See 1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and. Justification Report. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate !offs), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. Sec 1.1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report. LIST HALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). Parcel number 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 232304-9001, 722950-0350, 232304-9005 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/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: Jason Rich, King County Address: 201 South Jackson St., 7th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 477-4582 E-mail: jason.rich@kingcounty.gov FAX: .2-06. S-66 . 80 (( Signature: Date: 241(14 \kltprstoretC ty CommontTenlRevisions In Progress, ZoningCode•Shorct(ne variance App.doca Appendix C SEPA Checklist WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April 9, 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County Parks City of Renton City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Final design and permitting complete in Fall 2015 Construction start in Spring 2016 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Segment A is one segment of the longer Lake to Sound Trail, some of which has been constructed and some of which will be designed in the future. See attached Feasibility Study for additional information. Each future segment will have independent utility and will undergo separate environmental review. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Feasibility Study • Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report • Critical Areas Study • Stream Discipline Report • Technical Information Report • Cultural Resources Survey Report (ICF 2011) • Cultural Resource Survey Memorandum for the Amended APE (Aqua Terra 2015) • 60-percent Plans • Draft Geotechnical Report 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The project is subject to federal funding through Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Previously, approvals had been provided for National Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As a result of a project change to add the new trail bridge over the Black River, the reviews were re -opened. To date, only Section 106 has been completed. The other reviews are pending. No other applications have been submitted to date. See list in Item 10 below. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, including critical areas and drainage reviews, from Renton and Tukwila • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Variance from Renton • Grading Permits from Renton and Tukwila • Street Use Permits from Renton • General Construction NPDES Permit from Washington Department of Ecology • Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2 • Federal transportation funding triggers: o Documented Categorical Exclusion (National Environmental Policy Act) o National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Concurrence o Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Concurrence 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.) King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see 60-percent plans). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. The Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A would: • Serve local and regional non -motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. • Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. • Provide a critical link in the regional trails system. • Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft -surface (gravel) shoulders • Performing minor grading to construct the trail • Installing a new trail bridge over the Black River to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use • Installing a pedestrian -actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Building one small retaining wall along the trail and additional walls on the bridge approaches and the Monster Road approach. • Constructing up to two 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and potentially one north of Fort Dent Park) • Installing split -rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife 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. Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north -south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east -west bearing. These tracks tie into the north -south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road (approximately 4,300 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new bridge for non -motorized use to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The project area is generally flat, sloping gently from the east to the west. To the north is a railroad branch line serving the Renton Boeing Plant near the same elevation as the trail; a gravel mining operation on a steep slope north of the railroad and an apartment complex at the top of the slope at a considerably higher elevation than the project area. Additionally, there are steeper slopes down from the banks of the Black River, south of the project area, between the Black River Pump Station and 4 Monster Road. b. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The trail alignment is relatively flat. The steepest slope along the trail is approximately 5% on the approaches to the bridge. Otherwise, the steepest slope on the site is adjacent to the Black river from the terrace (on which the trail is locate) down to the water level. 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 majority of the project area is mapped as Woodinville silt loam. A small portion of the study area (near the northeast most part) is mapped as Tukwila muck. The Woodinville series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in recent alluvium on flood plains and low terraces. The Tukwila series consists of deep, very poorly drained soils formed in organic material stratified with diatomaceous earth and volcanic ash. Tukwila soils are in depressions on stream terraces and glacial uplands. Subsurface exploration occurred in the vicinity of the new bridge over the Black River, where the subsurface is underlain by granular soil (fill), over loose alluvium, over medium dense alluvium, and over Glacial Till or Bedrock. Because the loose alluvium is of geotechnical concern due to earthquake loading conditions, ground improvements will be constructed in the vicinity of the bridge foundation. 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. Preliminary earthwork quantities indicate approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill, including crushed rock and asphalt, will be necessary. Please note that cuts and fills within the 100-year floodplain are balanced, with no net fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. In the absence of temporary erosion and sediment controls during construction, exposed earth could erode into adjacent lower lying wetlands, rivers, or the municipal storm sewer system. Temporary erosion measures consisting of Best Management Practices, will be implemented as outline in Item h below. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Development of the trail will result in a total of 2.9 acres of impervious surface, distributed over 1.2 miles and 5 drainage areas. Much of the 2.9 acres is already an existing gravel maintenance road. Within the 88 acre study area, the trail will total about 3.3 percent of the site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Construction BMPs may include the following, as appropriate: Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) Buffer Zones (BMP C102) High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Mulching (BMP C121) Plastic Covering (BMP C123) Concrete Handling (BMP C151) Check Dams (BMP C207) Outlet Protection (BMP C209) Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Silt Fence (BMP C233) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C251) 2. Air 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. During construction, air emissions typically include primarily particulate matter (Le., PM10 and PM2.5) and small amounts of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from construction machinery exhaust. The sources of particulates are fugitive dust from diesel exhaust. Temporary increases in particulate emissions may be noticeable if uncontrolled. In addition, temporary odors from machinery exhaust and paving activities will occur. Air emissions post -construction at the site are not expected to change from existing conditions. The non -motorized trail will not introduce any new activities that would involve air emissions. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Offsite emissions include those from vehicles using the adjacent roadways and from trains operating on the heavy rail lines through the area. None of these emissions should affect the proposed trail. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction, equipment emissions will not exceed state and national air quality standards. Construction BMPs will be implemented to control dust and limit impacts to air quality. These could include the following: • Wet down dust on site. • Minimize ground disturbances. • Remove excess dirt, dust, and debris from adjacent roadway if necessary. • Maintain construction equipment in good working condition. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The trail alignment is located within WRIA 9, the Green-Duwamish River basin, and within the regulated buffers of the Black River and Green River. East of Monster Road, the trail alignment occurs north of the Black River. The trail will cross the Black River via a new non -motorized bridge east of the existing Monster Road bridge. West of Monster Road, the trail runs south of the Black River to the confluence with the Green River. The trail alignment intersects the Green River at about RM 11.0 on the right bank of the river. According to the WDNR stream typing system, both rivers are (Type S) streams, designated as shorelines of the state. For additional information, please refer to the attached Stream Discipline Report. Seven wetlands occur in the project area: • The Wetland 1/2 complex is located west and east of the north end of Neches Avenue SW and north of the Black River, extending outside the study area. The Wetland 1/2 Complex was initially delineated as two separate wetlands in the field, but after'further review of hydrologic conditions and connections, was determined to be one wetland complex. It is a Category II (Ecology rating), palustrine forested (USFWS classification), riverine/depressional (HGM classification) wetland complex. • Wetland 3 is located north of Wetland 1 and south of the existing gravel maintenance road and BNSF rail tracks. It is a Category IV (Ecology rating), palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classifcation) wetland. • Wetland 4 is located just southwest of Wetland 3 and north of the Wetland 1/2 Complex. It is a Category IV (Ecology rating), palustrine forested (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland 5 is located north of the existing gravel maintenance road, east of Monster Road and south of the BNSF rail tracks. It is a Category III (Ecology rating), palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland 6 is located in the fork of the existing gravel maintenance road west of the Black River Pump Station. It is a Category III (Ecology rating), palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland 7 is located south of the existing gravel trail, northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River. It is a Category III (Ecology rating), palustrine emergent/palustrine forested (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland BR is southeast of the existing gravel trail, east-northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River. It is a Category II (Ecology rating), palustrine forested/palustrine emergent (USFINS classification), riverine/depressional (HGM classification) wetland. See the attached Critical Area Study for more information. 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. Construction of Segment A would occur within the regulated buffers of both the Green River and the Black River, but no work would occur below the ordinary high water mark of either river. In almost all cases, the quality of the riparian buffer that would be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Much of the riparian impact area along the Black River consists of grass or nonnative herbaceous and shrub species. Approximately 51 trees within the regulatory buffer of the Black River in the City of Renton would be removed. Construction of the western portion of the trail corridor would remove 14 trees within riparian buffers in the City of Tukwila. The total amount of riparian buffer permanently impacted by trail construction would be 0.73 acre (31,641 square feet). Of this area, 0.13 acre (5,715 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and is identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes (see below). An additional 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impact to riparian buffers is anticipated for construction. The construction impacts include ground improvements in the vicinity of the new bridge, as shown in the 60-percent plans. These improvements would be outside the ordinary high water mark and no closer than 5 feet of the water level during low summer flows when the improvements would be constructed. Construction of Segment A would occur within the regulated buffers of four wetlands, but no work would occur within the wetland boundaries. These buffers are generally low -functioning and are composed primarily of grasses and forbs along the existing maintenance road edge. A total of approximately 0.49 acre (21,321 square feet) of permanent impact to project area wetland buffers are anticipated as a result of the project. An additional 0.12 acre (5,302 square feet) of temporary impact to wetland buffers is anticipated for construction. All unavoidable impacts to wetland and stream buffers would be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090) and City of Tukwila critical areas regulations (TMC 18.44 and 18.45). Mitigation for wetland and stream buffer impacts would consist of planting or underplanting native trees and shrubs in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on buffer resources by maintaining or enhancing those functions that support water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Proposed enhancements would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of organic soil amendments (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. See the attached plans and Critical Area Study for more information. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No wetlands or streams would be permanently or temporarily filled or graded as a result of the project. All fill to be placed in wetland buffers and stream buffers will come from an approved off -site location. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions will be needed for this project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. Portions of the trail west of Monster Road occur in the 100-year floodplain. Cuts and fills will be balanced to result in no net fill within the floodplain. For additional information, see the attached Technical Information Report and Critical Areas Study. See attached plans. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. The trail is a non -pollutant generating surface, and BMPs are expected to prevent hazardous or waste materials from entering the stormwater conveyance system during construction. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Stormwater will be dispersed from the edge of the trail; however, the trail is a non -pollutant generating surface. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. 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. The source of runoff at the project is limited to rainwater. The trail is exempt from flow control in both the Cities of Renton and Tukwila because the change from the existing land cover to the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak flow of equal to or more than 0.1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. Whether by ground or surface water, the stormwater will ultimately flow to the Black River and Green River. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. The trail is a non -pollutant generating surface, and BMPs are expected to prevent hazardous or waste materials from entering the stormwater conveyance system during construction. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See the construction BMPs identified in Section B.1.h and Section 3.a.2) above. See the attached plans and Critical Area Study for more information 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder maple , aspen, other: black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Oregon ash X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X Shrubs: blackberry, salmonberry, hazelnut, red -osier dogwood, red elderberry, snowberry X Grass: reed canarygrass, upland grasses pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, other X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation: lawn Please refer to the attached Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional information. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The following discussion is summarized from the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, which uses land cover types based on the structural categories defined by Johnson and O'Neil (2001). By locating the trail on an existing maintenance road, the amount of vegetation removal is greatly minimized. Nearly all clearing (approximately 1.8 acre) would occur along the existing maintenance road, most of which consists of hardened surfaces or non-native plants. Where the trail route falls within areas classified as riparian -wetland habitat, the project footprint is largely free of native trees and shrubs that are the characteristic features of that habitat type. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.9 acre of this land cover type and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the 88-acre study area. Some low -growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy may be slightly reduced in some places. Within the City of Tukwila, approximately 20 trees would be cleared for trail construction. Within the City of Renton, all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail would be removed, as would all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. In total, approximately 129 trees would be removed within the City of Renton. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The WDNR Natural Heritage Program does not identify any rare plants within or in the vicinity of the project area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: As part of the project, trees will be planted in open areas adjacent to the trail with a line of sight toward the heron rookery (see #5 below). In addition, trees and native plants will be incorporated in proposed buffer mitigation areas. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk heron eagle songbirds other: pileated woodpecker, osprey, many waterfowl species mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: coyotes, raccoons, mice, voles, moles fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, bull trout The park is home to more than 50 species of birds, historically including one of the largest great blue heron colonies in the region. The site is a complex ecosystem with abundant wildlife habitat. The park is valued for year-round bird watching and nature viewing. Also: garter snakes, Pacific chorus frogs, and long -toed salamanders Please refer to the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional information. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The federally listed species that potentially occur in the project vicinity are bull trout, the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit of Chinook salmon, and the Puget Sound distinct population segment of steelhead. No ESA -listed or state -listed threatened or endangered wildlife species are known or expected to occur in the study area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. The habitat in the project area is suitable for and used by migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The following measures have been incorporated into the trail design in order to avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife: In • Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area. • Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads and disturbed areas to minimize disturbance of adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species that use these areas. • Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening occurs toward the perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat. • Minimizing earthwork. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. • Planting of trees. Where the trail runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, native trees and shrubs will be planted along the south side of the trail to provide additional visual screening of the trail from the central portion of the natural area to the south. The plantings would include mature evergreen trees, to offset some of the temporal loss of canopy cover. As these plants grow taller and more dense, they will reduce the potential for trail use to disturb nesting great blue herons. Plantings will be monitored to ensure establishment and long-term success. • Fencing. Fencing will be placed on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in areas that appear inviting to discourage people from accessing the central portion of the natural area. Other wildlife viewing trails are provided on the south side of the forest. Wayfinding signage at Naches Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW and Monster Road will describe the options. The following measures would be implemented before and during trail construction to avoid or minimize effects on vegetation and wildlife resources: • Limit construction activity to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. • Prepare and implement a revegetation plan that emphasizes the use of native species. • Where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, replace cleared trees larger than 6 inches in diameter that occur outside critical area buffers with new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. If City of Renton regulatory requirements result in a higher replacement ratio, the higher ratio will be used. Some larger evergreen trees to offset the temporal loss of canopy cover would be included. (Planting for visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony [see above] could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this requirement.) • To minimize harm to migratory birds, conduct vegetation clearing and construction activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through August 31. • Prevent disturbance of nesting great blue herons and their young due to trail construction and other noise -generating activities by implementing the following measure: 11 o Within 1,312 feet of an active colony, conduct activities that are likely to disturb nesting herons outside the courtship and nesting season (i.e., restrictions would apply between January 15 and August 31). Restricted activities would include major earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand tools would not be restricted. • If bald eagles construct a new nest within 660 feet of the trail alignment before construction begins, additional measures, such as timing restrictions on construction activities with the potential to disturb nesting eagles, may be necessary. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 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: None proposed. The trail offers a nonmotorized transportation alternative. 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 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Predominant noise in the project area results from vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways and highways, and from trains on the heavy rail lines through the area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Long-term noise will be limited to voices of trail users, barking dogs, and bicycle tires. Temporary noise will occur during construction (includes typical equipment such as trucks, backhoes, compressors, and pumps), but will be relatively short-term. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities will be limited to day light hours. 12 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? East of Monster Road, Segment A traverses the northern and eastern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The Black River Riparian Forest is a 94-acre park facility, managed by the City of Renton as Open Space. A Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line parallels the trail to the north. A business park is adjacent to the trail to the east. The existing gravel road that the trail will follow is used for walking and exercising pets. Moving west from Monster Road, the trail alignment traverses a secondary driveway for an adjacent business. The driveway occurs within the road right of way. It is gated to allow only periodic access and would accommodate the trail. The trail then traverses properties owned by the City of Tukwila, Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF, passing underneath two existing railroad bridges. At its western terminus, Segment A would connect to the Green River Trail along the northern edge of Fort Dent Park. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. East of Monster Road, the only structures are those associated with the Black River Pump Station. West of Monster Road, the only structures are the two railroad bridges and one utility bridge that cross over the proposed trail corridor. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? East of Monster Road, the site is zoned by the City of Renton as Commerciial Office (along eastern edge of the Black River Riparian Forest) and Resource Conservation (elsewhere). West of Monster Road and east of the railroad bridges, site is zoned by the City of Renton as Industrial Light. West of the railroad bridges, the site is zoned by the City of Tukwila as Low Density Residential. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? East of the railroad bridges (City of Renton), the comprehensive plan designation is Employment Area — Valley. West of the railroad bridges (City of Tukwila), the comprehensive plan designation is Low Density Residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The City of Renton designates the Black River reach as a "natural" shoreline environment. The City of Tukwila designates the Green River and Black River adjacent to Fort Dent Park as "urban conservancy" shoreline environment. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Critical areas are in the project vicinity. Please refer to Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this checklist, the Wetland Discipline Report, the Stream Discipline Report, and the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional information. 17 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: City of Renton Based on the City's updated Shoreline Master Program, the trail project must obtain a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit that demonstrates that the trail would accommodate public access to publlic open space, while still protecting the natural resources in the area. Otherwise, City planning documents identify this trail connection specifically as a high priority. More generally, the City's circulation policy states: 1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of non -motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plans and of the Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline. 2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that link together shoreline public access into an interconnected network including active and passive parks, schools, public and private open space, native vegetation easements with public access, utility rights of way, waterways, and other opportunities. 3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community facilities and the comprehensive trails system that provides no -motorized access throughout the city. 4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River, the Black River/Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. State Recreation & Conservation Office The Black River Riparian Forest was acquired with a variety of funding sources, including an Urban Wildlife grant from what is now the state Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). King County consulted with RCO to ensure the consistency of the project with the intent of the grant. RCO confirmed that the grant program encourages public access to wildlife areas, so the trail is consistent with the grant. City of Tukwila As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. The proposed trail is also consistent with the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. 14 Other Plans In addition, from 2001 to 2004, the Cascade Bicycle Club undertook an extensive study of bicycling conditions within the Puget Sound Region, including King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties. The findings of the study were summarized in a report titled Left by the Side of the Road. This report identified the Two Rivers Trail (an alternative name for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail) as a missing link badly needed in the regional trail network. Private Properties King County is coordinating with the railroad companies regarding design features to protect the railroad operations and railroad property. Trail right of way or an easement will be acquired from the railroad companies following environmental review. Staff from the City of Renton have been coordinating with the adjacent business regarding the potential effects of the trail on a secondary driveway. The trail is not expected to adversely affect the business. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 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? BNSF has requested that the trail potentially be covered within 30 feet of the overhead railroad bridge to prevent debris from falling on trail users. If required, the cover will be 12 to 14 feet above the trail for vertical clearance, but must clear and cannot impede inspection of the railroad bridge above. The railings for the new bridge for non -motorized use to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge would be approximately 4 feet above the trail surface. The entire structure is designed to be 7 feet in height. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The trail alignment is not adjacent to residential uses and abuts only a few business uses. Within the two parks, vegetation removal may affect the views of park users. However, the amount of removal has been minimized, as described in #5 above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Any new planting of shrubs/trees/groundcovers will be selected and laid out to enhance trail integration into surrounding landscape. 1C 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The new signalized crossing of Monster Road will be illuminated. The illumination will be comparable to other roadway lighting in the area. The remainder of the trail will not be illuminated as trail use is intended for dawn to dusk. 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? No existing off -site sources of light or glare will affect the trail. 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 Black River Riparian Forest is a 94-acre park facility owned and managed by the City of Renton. The park is valued for year-round bird watching and nature viewing. The trail alignment is currently the location of a maintenance access road, used by walkers. Fort Dent Park is approximately 54 acres and has soccer fields, a playground, a picnic area, restrooms, trails, and open areas. Fort Dent Park includes the Starfire Sports Complex, which is a private concession providing indoor fields and activities. The proposed trail connects directly to the Green River Trail and indirectly to the Interurban Trail and Cedar River Trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 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. Yes. The White Lake site (45K1438) is located on the south bank of the Black River at its confluence with the Green River. Comprising two loci (45KI438 and 45KI438A), it is listed in the NRHP under criterion D for its potential to yield information important to prehistory. Data sets from the White Lake site provide necessary information in developing an understanding of the hunter -gather -fisher settlement subsistence pattern in the Green River-Duwamish Valley. Additional information is provided in the project's Cultural Resources Survey Report. While the proposed trail alignment traverses the boundaries of this site, a cultural resource survey found no evidence of the archaeological site was identified during field shovel probes. 16 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Although no historic properties were found in the APE, the western portion of the project area is nonetheless considered sensitive for the presence of precontact archaeological resources because of the nearby presence of 45KI438 and known ethnographic villages. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Excavation to construct the trail within archaeological site boundaries has been minimized and will not exceed 9 to 12 inches. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. As shown on the vicinity map and site plans, the trail connects to Naches Avenue at its eastern terminus and crosses Monster Road. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The area is not well served by public transit: • Metro Transit route #150 serves Interurban Ave S. to the west. • Metro Transit route #140 connects at Grady Way and Powell. • Sound Transit routes #566 and 560 connect at Rainier Ave S and SW 7th St. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would neither provide nor eliminate parking. Trail users will be able to park at Fort Dent Park to access the trail. 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). The proposal will construct a new signalized crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Yes. The trail will cross under two existing railroad bridges west of Monster Road. The trail will also parallel an east -west BNSF line north of the Black River Riparian Forest. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No motor vehicle trips per day would be generated by the completed project. Persons using the trail are primarily expected to walk from residences or places of employment or to use existing facilities such as Fort Dent Park. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Completion of the proposed trail could result in reduction in the number of motor vehicles and bicycles using the roadways by transitioning some drivers into bicyclists or pedestrians using the trail. 15. Public services 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 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. The areas through which the alignment traverses are not served by utilities but numerous utilities cross the alignment. These utility crossings include telephone, stormwater, gas, sewer, electricity, and water. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The new pedestrian -actuated signal and illumination will require electricity. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 1R Section I: Buildings Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet MTCO2e Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) # Units Square Feet (in thousands of square feet) Embodied Energy Transportation Lifespan Emissions (MTCO2e) 0 Single -Family Home 0 w; 98 672 792 Multi -Family Unit in Large Building 0 :: 33 357 766 0 Multi -Family Unit in Small Building 0 ° 54 681 766 0 Mobile Home 0 ;' 41 475 709 0 Education 0.0 39 646 361 0 Food Sales 0.0 39 1,541 282 0 Food Service 0.0 39 1,994 561 0 Health Care Inpatient 0.0 39 1,938 582 0 Health Care Outpatient •°.' 0.0 39 737 571 0 Lodging 0.0 39 777 117 0 Retail (Other Than Mall) 0.0 39 577 247 0 Office 0.0 39 723 588 0 Public Assembly .',:' :. 0.0 39 733 150 0 Public Order and Safety ,' . ; 0.0 39 899 374 0 Religious Worship 0.0 39 339 129 0 Service 0.0 39 599 266 0 Warehouse and Storage ' 0.0 39 352 181 0 Other 0.0 39 1,278 257 0 Vacant =a' 0.0 39 162 47 0 Section II: Pavement Pavement Total Project Emissions: 4575 4575 Appendix D Site Plan and Cross Sections 111 SSVa3n0 JSNB le 3 )(Im I ipr 3NnJaoHs i3 00z alum' A3NYA 3SN00 Nrild00013 NON010SIanr Li ooz 2 s NOliolasIdnr 0ys 1J ooz I Es Nr1d00013 U CO NO1131051801' OHS 13 OOZ a3JJne AONWA213SN00 ridHan — -1— s 3Nn3aoHSHs lJ 00Z NOHDIOSIanf _311173i1OU5 1 OOZ a3JJna -- -- A3NVn83SNO3 Nvi n .-1—.— NIV1d0001J Z W LL N09D10SI9M + 3Nn3a0HS 14 DOZ +Jaime ANtlnL35N00 Ntnig0 NMdP0013 It t R 3N1138OHS — - —�--- 1i 00Z e3330e AON9N98350N00 � NMid0001i 8 9 rametrlx ..-E w LL s R NO11305181I{ f SS_+ 13 ON. N3JJnn8 AJNVA83SNO3 NTr- LAJIVKINI UL Q EXISTING GROUND -- i� =ONWA/ APPROX. ELEV.11.3 � I _ I 8 8 8 R S 8 R 4 8 N011310SIanf 3NIl3LONS_ �oZ T t— N3JJ98 -AJMVAa3SNO0 0171tr- c+� R 8 3 Appendix E Civiil Plans I cp c > T c. a c4) fn O c I c Z 0 Z w ; )71)' a ~ V V J C CD as COVER SHEET N INDEX TO DRAWINGS f o8o gw wF c.czy " OW 5V 5z ��� MnnPFgFRFFt�,FF TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS G d inn �d �d �d �d �d �d 3}mod3 �d �d �d `d �Z �d v�i CULVERT DETAILS GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PROFILES rra'a SIGNAL PLAN SIGNAL WIRING DIAGRAM SIGNAL POLE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS SIGNAL DETAILS BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION BRIDGE FOUNDATION LAYOUT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PIERS 1 AND 2 BARLIST N zzpppp F. Ag SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL O N2 N cccUU(,;8 w wwwu ww u L-.T3V;cwwuctt�000UU[� ,n aa 3 coon R^ U !� ;,-,Arlin Milli PP _ TYPICAL SECTIONS 18 WALLPROWILES 36 3 in ABBREVIATIONS: 8 a$ 3_ r w r 8 o_ a a G G `G € r r”>` k d d Y. a"" r k r 8 Q 3 F C d G w u r & g " @ - a r a 8 yL a r c-ggmris`5ss,"�5ooww,WeggW 3=__x� z -JO F ~ FU D m Z C Z 0 W U WQ O e , .o z GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACH 1 o = . • 0 Z W0 J .Eiffi 1111 0.o g ®o i oogg !,XX5$X 0 Z W 0 W J M0 131333S 3H1331tlW \ r' 2� \ o $WAN g1 3s 7 2 / MATCH N SEE ABOVE 44, SURVEY CONTROL PLAN 01 O z z O 1- O f 0 g6 io 0 N ofir Co 0, R 0 0 G$ ua u ici 3 zaa'IG1 $ g i io. rc 3� gLL Zi:z h w3 oF� 0d w_ Q es,! xw QQ n ww w i ww i o� G� w w o" o o U Go$ti Fcoi Na �" a' w [aw r^�i w w w x� � 'o�N U-3_3 H� 33 A8 _ 0000 00 000 000000 O OOP 00000 0 t4 z�S31133HS 3300+0b NO1N3a V11M1UI111.t 30 ADO. I111 � 1 . 4- 1 �i • • 1--- SVda3A0 • 0NOOIVd NOINO 03 SSVd213A0 ASNa • I 11�, Ila tt m i I� la p+S+S g V1S 3NIl HO1tl1111 w W CONSTRUCTION NOTES: ^g 2 0 0 0 r C-U 9TA 207H9 TO 207r20 0 2 U 0 0 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS ff CML CONSTRUCTION NOTES: a GENERAL NOTES: Ora 6S'IZ f� 6 CZ 90'ZZ $ ILZZ 3 Z! S9ZZ 966 Z6'ZZ L6'ZZ 9i7 LLI LT- 0 w /316. 0.50.1--66'ZZ 906Z ZZ LITZ $ 5p U PLAN AND PROFILE RIVER TRAIL TO NACRES AVE SW 82 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: § (@ ) §| E\ §»& 2■g ) )�§§§: §/ UT,§F ■m;�� ■;E \ [§| > !#1||�, |z{2§« &�, �;_ &m� - ■� «ES BI »§� m� G : �|) ° -- |2SHi,E? ( %/§(§( %j 2�(\ |�§ (§ §\/ \\// ( k§( (§\ k UOSUU33033 3 33A ®® (pc) FA_ j ALIO |t ,_, 3 03145 of ( I ( :� I I _2/-- � k es� i®� -.w x !• g PLAN AND PROFILE ) SIGN SCHEDULE REMARKS• SEE NOTE 4 SEE NOTE 1. SEE NOTE 1. SEE NOTES 2 & 3. SEE NOTES 2 & 3. SEE NOTES 2 & 3. SEE NOTES 2 & 3. SEE NOTES 2 & 3 SEE NOTES 2 & 3 PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. REMOVE AND DISPOSE POST SIZERYPE N/A 4•X4• / WOOD 4"X4" / WOOD 4•X4" / WOOD 4•X4• / WOOD 4•X4• / WOOD "(\\\\\\\"',,,*\\ MUTCD SIGN i k CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL (BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL TRAIL CROSSING TRAIL CROSSING %* EXISTING TRAIL SIGN INO DUMPING INO STOPPING OR STANDING 'SPEED LIMB NO MOTOR VEHICLES NO MOTOR VEHICLES INO MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT k� $| LSEE SHEET TS1 SEE SHEET TS1 SEE SHEET TS1 SEE SHEET TS1 SEE SHEET TS1 SEE SHEET TS1 \\\\\/\\\\ |- „ " " ' - _,:__! 1. MOUNT ON MAST ARM, PER CITY a r\ H DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET, UNLESS | FASTING 1290767.16 1290767.53 1290770.97 1290776.83 1290782.72 1290783.02 1290786.21 1290793.02 1290789.61 NORTNINO 176555.06 176542.07 176527.75 176529.16 176530.32 176540.86 176548.10 176554.94 176559.88 175564.67 176559.27 176551.85 B 5 t_,t . 2lb:b.'0O'0a Li §\\/t,t_t \\! § }0::<::_c.::: ■;:=,m,R:;#;, |ww4mmw4«nr8n |E§:]§§:§§§:: 0 f BOLLARD STRIPING !I co J W J 0 I 0 F m i- m cnz (n Z 0 W U WtX �0 e � m 0 Z L6'0Ca13 8L'96+L VIS [Ad fr� 5 1 RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW ; ;I P ) B § 0 co I «» ,_ |2 0 q tu 0 ) < 8�8 ri zz i S133. H S3 83d 3d01S g • Y 41 du '.z z JJ O_ F— ~ mI— D Z M Z WU > cc W O e � O 09 y J W 0 3 Q GENERAL NOTES: tio TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATION FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES ko lbw M m n _ N �8 =6 N „ 2 pW iDN DIAMETER` OF TREE REMOVED (N EASURCD AT MOCK( OF 4.5 FEET ER014 THE GROUND) 4-6 INCHES (SINGLE TRUNK); 2 INCHES (AM TRUNK OF A Muhl-1RUNK TREE) OVER 5-E INCHES OVER E-20 INCHES b ~ MO138 33S 3N11H31VW 1 FORT DENT PA a W N• X Y __—_nU 3HS33S3N11HDIVW � 1 I t. I h I A' � SSVda3n0 I d n13 �'o� a JSNe I 1 1 1 -- -- LL 3AOBV 33S 3NI1H3IVW FORT DENT PARK JO R- I- - - D cE cE V1Z 0 W O WCC O e 0 O�1 O 0 a 2 MITIGATION PLAN R5/ER TRAIL TO NACRES AVE SW 41 Y ON NOTES: NOIN3al 30 All] vunvin 1O AO0 1/d SVdN3A0 OI313Vd NOINO a GENERAL NOTES: G Z W w W J III ,`, • LdVI 133HS 3I NI1H311/W NO1N3N JO ,WO I/AHnl JO ADD s a PLANTING QUANTITY TAB -THIS SHEET ONLY - SVMB6L�IiEy QUANTITY STREAM BAREA ENHANCEMENT PLANTING AREA MEE SHEE MPS FOR ONE �NFORM�LION 'iW :3 �S'3� is 8W ma••••• . •••••s•♦ II //%y.y / / •••s ripi ao�/ isii 4 •••••i••i* iti4.,.. ••••i, -+' Ij••.••�•...*.toottotirea 1•••• -...., 1•1•411*1#4*4.••1� \'�44144 •Or•••••0•••144 4/411* \��•••••••�••• 4 111:'. to ; I 1, r ;I,-/ —I X,I4. I I J0_ m V) Z O WV Wcc 0 e� m0 a 2 MITIGATION PLAN § § § 8 § wj k ; } . (!§ { ! §|\ § e'M MIN SRE / CONOITON 22 ss \\ ICAL / CONT. OR BMB I' CAL / CONT. OR BM 0' NT. / CONT. 0R BMB I' CAL / CONT. OR BMB D' NT. / CONT. OR B&B I' K D' LK STAKE CUTTING I' K D' LIVE STAKE CUTTING B' HT. / CONT. OR B&B ! jf I CAL CONT. I CAL CONT. t§\§ !f!! ) NNE APPLE BIGLEAF MAPLE 8UE h' | DOUCUS RR PACIFIC WILLOW § " \ BEAKED HAZELNUT BUCK HAWMOtN ||}R )|§| THIMBLEBERRY COMMON 5N0WBERRY § '§ ACER CRCII&STVM • ACER MACROPNYLLUM •)' 0:gsa -,Es0.2. §|)T!§) ' • “ § CORYLUS CORNUTA CRATAECUS OOUCUSII i \( ]§ MYR. CALIFORNICA ROSA NUTKANA ;§ )g §| \ .,- r..l EF':- .. STAKE INSTALLATION w ( 2 MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS 4 ) GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACRES AVE SW B. z gra a ffx MITIGATION NOTES e Co rnU"'`7 Development Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for 111 King County April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study Prepared for La King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April / 11C I SGA_1C)1_r172d fR/4T/IV1R1 CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 1.2 PROJECT FEATURES 1-1 1.3 PROJECT AREA AND SETTING 1-2 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1-2 1.5 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1-4 1.6 STUDY AREA 1-4 1.7 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 1-4 2. METHODS ,. 2-1 2.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION 2-1 2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2-1 2.3 WETLANDS 2-1 2.3.1 Identification and Delineation 2-1 2.3.2 Wetland Classification and Rating 2-3 2.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment 2-4 2.4 STREAMS 2-4 2.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 2-6 2.6 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD 2-7 2.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2-7 3. RESULTS 3-1 3.1 GENERAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use 3-1 3.1.2 Topography 3-1 3.1.3 Soils 3-1 3.1.4 Vegetation 3-1 3.1.5 Fish and Wildlife 3-2 3.2 WETLANDS IN STUDY AREA 3-2 3.3 STREAMS 3-14 3.3.1 Green and Black River Basins 3-14 3.3.2 Green River 3-15 3.3.3 Black River 3-16 3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 3-18 3.5 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD 3-18 n...11 lnlc 1 ccn Ic» non /o /JTSfl lol Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4. IMPACTS 4-1 4.1 WETLANDS 4-1 4.1.1 Permanent Wetland Impacts 4-1 4.1.2 Permanent Wetland Buffer Impacts 4-1 4.1.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts 4-2 4.1.4 Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts 4-2 4.2 STREAMS 4-2 4.2.1 Permanent Stream Impacts 4-2 4.2.2 Permanent Stream Buffer Impacts 4-20 4.2.3 Temporary Stream Impacts 4-21 4.2.4 Temporary Stream Buffer Impacts 4-21 4.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 4-21 4.4 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD 4-21 5. MITIGATION 5-1 5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION 5-1 5.2 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY IMPACTS 5-1 5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 5-2 5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation 5-2 5.3.2 Site Selection 5-3 5.3.3 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions 5-3 5.3.4 Proposed Mitigation 5-4 5.3.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards 5-4 6. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 6-1 6.1 MONITORING .6-1 6.1.1 Quantitative Monitoring 6-1 6.1.2 Qualitative Monitoring 6-1 6.2 MAINTENANCE 6-2 6.3 CONTINGENCY MEASURES 6-2 7. REFERENCES 7-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Vicinity Map 1-3 3-1 Critical Areas 3-3 3-2 Critical Areas 3-4 3-3 Critical Areas 3-5 ii April 2015 1554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3-4 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics 3-19 4-1 Critical Areas Impacts 4-3 4-2 Critical Areas Impacts 4-5 4-3 Critical Areas Impacts 4-7 4-4 Critical Areas Impacts 4-9 4-5 Critical Areas Impacts 4-11 4-6 Critical Areas Impacts 4-13 4-7 Critical Areas Impacts 4-15 4-8 Critical Areas Impacts 4-17 4-9 Critical Areas Impacts 4-19 LIST OF TABLES 2-1 Key to Plant Indicator Status Categories 2-2 2-2 Criteria for Wetland Rating Categories as Specified by Ecology and the City of Renton 2-3 2-3 Criteria for Stream Classifications as Specified by Washington State and the Cities of Renton and Tukwila 2-5 2-4 Criteria for FWHCA Designations as Specified by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila 2-6 3-1 Summary of Wetlands in the Project Area 3-6 3-2 Summary of Wetland Functions for Wetlands in the Project Area 3-6 4-1 Wetland and Buffer Impacts 4-1 4-2 Stream and Buffer Impacts 4-2 6-1 Contingency Measures for the Mitigation Site 6-3 APPENDICES A Wetland Determination Data Forms B Wetland Rating Forms C Wetland Functions and Values Forms D Site Photographs E Mitigation Plans Anril 7(115 I 55A-1 571-nRA (R/QTZnnRI Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County ACRONYMS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials BMP best management practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Cities City of Renton and City of Tukwila CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (program) Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAC Facultative FACU Facultative Upland FACW Facultative Wetland FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FWHCA fish and wildlife habitat conservation area HGM hydrogeomorphic classification HPA Hydraulic Project Approval LWD large woody debris NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OBL Obligate OHWM ordinary high water mark PAA Potential Annexation Area PEM palustrine emergent PFO palustrine forested RCW Revised Code of Washington RM river mile SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SMP Shoreline Master Program 4nril c 1 ccA_1c')1_nun IR/1T1nnu) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County ACRONYMS (CONTINUED) TESC temporary erosion and sediment control TMC Tukwila Municipal Code TNW Traditional Navigable Water UPL Upland USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation vi April 2015 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across a proposed non -motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (Figure 1-1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. 1.2 Project Features Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft -surface (gravel) shoulders. • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.72 acre outside the proposed trail footprint). • Performing ground improvements which would disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre in addition to other disturbances from the trail. • Installing a new trail bridge over the Black River to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use. • Installing a pedestrian -actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge. • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris. • Installing one box culvert for terrestrial habitat enhancement. • Building retaining walls near the south approach to Monster Road, north of the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River, and on either side of the box culvert. A...41 onac I ccn.flcfll non /o/]T]nn01 Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Final Critical Area Study King County • Installing split -rail fencing and plantings to discourage incursions into sensitive areas and to improve visual screening for sensitive wildlife. Constructing two approximately 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the Black River pump station) 1.3 Project Area and Setting The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor (see Figure 1-1). Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (BNSF and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north -south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east -west bearing. These tracks tie into the north -south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the city of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the city of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to the new pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road (approximately 4,100 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The gravel maintenance road is currently used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel ranging from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low -growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a proposed new non -motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. 1.4 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non -motorized transportation corridor and multi -use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW in Renton and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. Segment A would provide non -motorized access to recreation and employment centers and would complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of user groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards will safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. 1-7 Anril 2015 1 554.-1c71-f1R4 IR/4T1f1f1R1 co rn co cO J co 2 Proposed Rest Area Proposed Culvert 2 0 ti co 0 0 • W� Y C r J N 4 )41111401. MS eAt/ seyoeN TS m c•—• w2 a_ Proposed Rest Area co coII 1 0) 0 co c0 .0 co 5F Waterworks Gardens c cu G) 0 m� G(e 0• 0 �Z U re .00 n Pv s ▪ aco I 4- 0 0 'arametrix d a co 0 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Completion of Segment A would provide the following benefits: • Serve local and regional non -motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. • Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. • Provide a critical Zink in the Regional Trail System. • Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. 1.5 Purpose of Report Investigation of critical areas is required by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as outlined in Renton Municipal Code 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program Regulations), and Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44 and 18.45 (Shoreline Overlay and Environmentally Sensitive Areas). This Critical Area Study is intended to provide information in support of project planning and to facilitate permitting. This report describes wetlands, streams (watercourses), fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), and Areas of Special Flood Hazard. It also presents measures included in the project design to avoid and minimize impacts on these critical areas. Specific objectives of this report are as follows: • Review, compile, and analyze existing wetland, stream, and FWHCA data for the project site and vicinity. • Identify and document wetlands, streams, and FWHCAs in the study area. • Evaluate potential impacts on wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and their associated buffers from the proposed trail. • Identify mitigation measures to protect wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and their associated buffers, and present compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Other critical areas regulated by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, such as geologically hazardous areas and critical aquifer recharge areas, are not addressed in this report. 1.6 Study Area For the field investigation, the study area comprises the area within 100 feet of the trail corridor, from Naches Avenue SW parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park. 1.7 Applicable Laws and Regulations King County is receiving federal funding through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program for the design of this segment of the Lake to Sound Trail. Federal funding triggers requirements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act. An Environmental Classification Summary, ESA Biological Assessment, and Cultural Resources Survey Report have been prepared for this project. 1-4 Anril 7MS I SS4-1S71-nR4(R/4T4MR1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetlands and streams within the study area are subject to federal, state, and City of Renton or City of Tukwila regulations. At the federal level, wetlands and streams are regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates placement of fill in waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for issuing permits under Section 404 of the CWA. In June 2007 and December 2008 (revised version), the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a joint memorandum that clarifies CWA jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's decision in the Rapanos case. Guidance in the memorandum identifies situations where a developer may need to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit before completing work in wetlands, tributaries, or other waters of the United States. CWA jurisdiction may also be extended to waters that are not Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) of the United States if either of the following two standards is met. The first standard extends regulatory jurisdiction to non -navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent and wetlands that directly abut (there is a surface connection) these waters. The second standard requires a case -by -case determination ("significant nexus" analysis) for non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have characteristics that may significantly affect TNWs. Activities that affect wetlands and streams may also require a water quality certification (Section 401 of the CWA), which is administered at the federal level by the EPA and implemented at the state level by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Ecology reviews projects for compliance with state water quality standards and makes permitting and mitigation decisions based on the nature and extent of impacts, as well as the type and quality of wetlands or streams being affected. Activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the flow of a water of the state, including some wetlands, typically require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) chapter 220- 110 regulates water -crossing structures and describes requirements for a HPA from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Under the Renton SMP (4-3-050 and 4-3-090) and TMC (16.52, 18.44 and 18.45), the Cities of Renton and Tukwila designate and regulate activities within critical areas and their buffers, including wetlands, streams, special flood hazards, and FWHCAs. These regulations describe the Cities' requirements for the identification, rating, and categorization of wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and buffers; mitigation and performance standards; as well as the requirements for Critical Area Studies (or Sensitive Area Special Studies). Development of the proposed trail would require land use and shoreline permits from the Cities. All local permit applications and other land use decisions are also subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, unless specifically exempted. A,.i17n1C 1 CCA_1C 1 114A In/]T3r1141 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 2. METHODS This report is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts is to document existing information to reflect current site conditions and collect new information for conducting the project design and assessing impacts. 2.1 Review of Existing Information Prior to conducting fieldwork, biologists reviewed maps and materials including, but not limited to: • King County iMap (King County 2015). • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA, NRCS 2010a). • National Wetlands Inventory online interactive mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildliife Service [USFWS] 2010). • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program database (DNR 2014). • Priority Habitats and Species database (WDFW 2015). • SalmonScape fish database and mapping application (WDFW 20144). • A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region (Williams et al. 1975). • Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 (Green/Duwamish River) Limiting Factors Analysis (WSCC 2000). 2.2 Field Investigation Project biologists performed field investigations over multiple site visits between November 2010 and February 2011 to identify and document wetlands. The biologists also conducted site visits on February 1 and March 29, 2011 to characterize streams,, FWHCAs, and potential off -site compensatory mitigation areas. Site investigations in the vicinity of the mitigation area were conducted during multiple site visits in March 2012. 2.3 Wetlands 2.3.1 Identification and Delineation The methods specified in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were used by project biologists to delineate on -site wetlands. Additionally, the methods specified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) were used. These methods comply with those in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Wetlands are 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. An area must have at nril')n1S I SSA-1 S71_fRA (RI -r nna1 1_1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County least one positive indicator of wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology to be considered a wetland. The delineated wetlands were instrument -surveyed by professional land surveyors. Wetland determination data forms from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) were recorded for each wetland (Appendix A). Vegetation The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status were evaluated to determine if the vegetation was hydrophytic. Hydrophytic vegetation is generally defined as vegetation adapted to prolonged saturated soil conditions. To meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be Facultative (FAC), Facultative Wetland (FACW), or Obligate (OBL), based on the plant indicator status category assigned to each plant species by the USFWS (Reed 1988, 1993). Table 2- 1 lists the definitions of the indicator status categories. Scientific and common plant names follow currently accepted nomenclature. Most names are consistent with Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973) and the PLANTS Database (USDA, NRCS 2010b). During the field investigations, dominant plant species were observed and recorded on data forms for each sample plot (Appendix A). Table 2-1. Key to Plant Indicator Status Categories Plant Indicator Status Category Symbol Definition Obligate Wetland Plants OBL Plants that almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but which may rarely (< 1% of the time) occur in non -wetlands. Facultative Wetland Plants FACW Plants that often (67% to 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but sometimes (1% to 33% of the time) occur in non -wetlands. Facultative Plants FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (33% to 66% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non -wetlands. Facultative Upland Plants FACU Plants that sometimes (1% to 33% of the time) occur in wetlands, but occur more often (67% to 99% of the time) in non -wetlands. Upland Plants UPL Plants that rarely (< 1% of the time) occur in wetlands, and almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in non -wetlands. Source: Environmental Laboratory (1987) Soils Generally, an area must have hydric soils to be a wetland. Hydric soil forms when soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Biological activities in saturated soil result in reduced oxygen concentrations that produce a preponderance of organisms using anaerobic processes for metabolism. Over time, anaerobic biological processes result in certain soil color patterns, which are used as indicators of hydric soil. Typically, low- chroma colors are formed in the soil matrix. Brightly -colored redoximorphic features form within the matrix under a fluctuating water table. Other important hydric soil indicators include organic matter accumulations in the surface horizon, reduced sulfur odors, and organic matter staining in the subsurface. Soils were examined by excavating sample plots to a depth of 18 inches or more to observe 2-2 Anri l 7015 1554-15 71-nR4 I R /RTROnR) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County soil profiles, colors, and textures. The depths of the sample plots ranged between 18 and 20 inches deep with varying widths, with the exception of two upland sample plots that were shallower because of the presence of quarry spalls or cobbles. Munsell color charts (GretagMacbeth 2000) were used to describe soil colors. Hydrology The project area was examined for evidence of hydrology. An area is considered to have wetland hydrology when soils are ponded or saturated consecutively 12.5 percent (sometimes 5 to 12.5 percent) of the growing season. In King County (Sea-Tac Airport station), the growing season generally lasts from early March (March 9) to mid -November (November 17) (USDA, NRCS 2002), so ponding or saturation must be present for approximately 32 consecutive days. Primary indicators of hydrology include surface inundation and saturated soils. Secondary indicators of hydrology include drainage patterns, watermarks on vegetation, water -stained leaves, and oxidized root channels. 2.3.2 Wetland Classification and Rating Delineated wetlands were classified according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classifications were assigned to wetlands using the Corps methods established in a Hydrogeomorphic Classification System for Wetlands (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated according to the Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised (Hruby 2004) (Appendix B). Table 2-2 summarizes the state and local jurisdiction wetland rating criteria for each wetland category. Buffer widths assigned to wetlands in the project area reflect requirements of the Renton SMP( 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv.(c)). No wetlands were identified within the City of Tukwila. Table 2-2. Criteria for Wetland Rating Categories as Specified by Ecology and the City of Renton Ecologya Category I Category II Category III Category IV Wetlands of exceptional value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood water and stormwater, and/or providing habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of 70 points or more. These are wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often provide documented habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered species and/or have other attributes that are very difficult or impossible to replace if altered. Wetlands that have very important resources as indicated by a rating system score of between 51 and 69 points. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands but still require a high level of protection. Wetlands that have important resource value as indicated by a rating system score of between 30 and 50 points. Wetlands that are of limited resource value as indicated by a rating system score of less than 30 points. They typically have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and/or are isolated or disconnected from other aquatic systems or high quality upland habitats. Rentonb Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised August 2004 (Ecology Publication #04-06-025). These categories are generally defined above. a Hruby (2004) b Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) w -Inn.. 1 re ,r-„ now Ir. InTnr..,n, Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Final Critical Area Study King County 2.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment Functions of individual wetlands were assessed using the WSDOT Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al. 2000) (Appendix C). This method allows evaluation of wetland function, using best professional judgment and readily observed environmental characteristics. For example, an area of open water may provide habitat for waterfowl or aquatic animals. The upland habitats and buffers surrounding wetlands were also considered in the evaluation, because adjacent land uses affect the performance of wetland functions. Project biologists reviewed the indicator characteristics present for each wetland and assigned a summary rating of low, moderate, or high for each wetland function. Functions that were considered most relevant to this project are grouped into three categories: habitat, water quality, and hydrological support. Habitat functions include providing fish, avian species, and other wildlife access to food, cover, and breeding and rearing opportunities. Hydrological functions assessed include groundwater recharge/discharge, base flow support, and flood flow alteration (storage and desynchronization). Water quality functions include protection and enhancement through sedimentation, erosnon protection, and nutrient retention/nutrient transformation. 2.4 Streams The Cities of Renton and Tukwila do not specifically define streams, but refer to streams as water courses. The City of Renton defines a watercourse as a channel in which a flow of water occurs either continuously or intermittently (Renton SMP 4-6-100). The City of Tukwila defines watercourses as a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally, including the Green/Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Watercourses do not include irrigation ditches, stormwater runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices. The edges (ordinary high water mark [OHWM]) of project area streams were identified by project biologists and instrument -surveyed by professional land surveyors. Streams associated with the project (Green River and Black River) in the city of Tukwila (west of the railroad bridges) are regulated under TMC 18.44, while in the city of Renton (east of the railroad bridges), the Black River and all of the Black River Riparian Forest is regulated under Renton SMP 4-3- 090. Table 2-3 lists the stream classification criteria as specified by these entities. Buffer widths assigned to streams in the project area reflect requirements of the Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.iv.(c)) and TMC (18.45.080.D). 2-4 April 2015 1 554-1521-084 (B/3T3008) Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Final Critical Area Study King County Table 2-3. Criteria for Stream Classifications as Specified by Washington State and the Cities of Renton and Tukwila Washington Statea Type Type F Type Np Type Ns Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Type 1 (5) Type 2 (F) Type 3 (Np) Type 4 (Ns) Streams and waterbodies that are designated "shorelines of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.58.030 (Revised Code of Washington [RCW)). Streams and waterbodies that are known to be used by fish, or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. Fish streams may or may not have flowing water all year; they may be perennial or seasonal. Streams that have flow year round, but do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream. This also includes streams that have been proven not to contain fish using methods described in the Forest Practices Board Manual Section 13. Streams that do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the year, and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream. Rentonb Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or (b) Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c) Is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one half (0.5) acre and twenty (20) acres in size. Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. Class 5 waters are non -regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. Tukwila Watercourses inventoried as Shorelines of the State, under RCW 90.58. These watercourses shall be regulated under TMC Chapter 18.44, Shoreline Overlay. Those watercourses that are known to be used by fish or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish and that have perennial (year-round) or seasonal flows. Those watercourses that have perennial flows and do not meet the criteria of a Type F stream or have been proven not to contain fish using methods described in the Forest Practices Board Manual Section 13. Those watercourses that have intermittent flows (do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the year) and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F watercourse. a WAC 222-16-031 b Renton SMP (4-3-050 L.1.a) TMC (18.45.100.A) RCW = Revised Code of Washington n ...a Inic 1 ccn flcol non /o /JTJnnfl Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Final Critical Area Study King County 2.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Proposed alterations to FWHCAs are regulated by both Cities (referred to as Fish Conservation Areas by the City of Renton). As defined in the Renton SMP, critical habitats are Category 1 wetlands and habitat associated with the documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government or the State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority species. Areas designated as FWHCAs by the City of Tukwila are mapped by the City; they include areas with which endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, as well as habitats and species of local importance. Table 2-4 provides a list of habitat types afforded protection under the City of Tukwila critical area regulations. Project biologists reviewed existing information (listed under Section 2.1), the USFWS King County Species List, and NOAA Fisheries Service Species List to identify any potential FWHCAs in the project vicinity. See the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015a) for additional information about FWHCAs associated with wildlife species. Table 2-4. Criteria for FWHCA Designations as Specified by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila Rentona 1. Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2. Waters of the State (i.e., the Green/Duwamish River itself); 3. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; 4. Areas critical for habitat connectivity; and 5. The approximate location and extent of known fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and are shown on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction map. Only the salmon habitat enhancement project sites completed or underway are shown as Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map. Streams are shown as watercourses. The river is not shown as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area for the sake of simplicity. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas correlate closely with the areas identified as regulated watercourses and wetlands and their buffers, as well as off -channel habitat areas created to improve salmon habitat (shown on the Sensitive Areas Map) in the Shoreline jurisdiction. The Green/Duwamish River is recognized as the most significant fish and wildlife habitat corridor. In addition Gilliam Creek, Riverton Creek, Southgate Creek, Hamm Creek (in the North Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and Johnson Creek (South PAA) all provide sa)monid habitat. Tukwilab 1. Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2. Habitats and species of local importance, including but not limited to bald eagle habitat, heron rookeries; 3. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; 4. Kelp and eelgrass beds; 5. Mudflats and marshes; 6. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; 7. Waters of the State; 8. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and 9. Areas critical for habitat connectivity. a Renton SMP (4-3-090) TMC (18.45.150) 2-6 Anril 2015 1 554-1521-0R4 IR/3T30061 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 2.6 Areas of Special Flood Hazard The City of Tukwila and the City of Renton regulate Areas of Special Flood Hazard (TMC 16.52 and RMC 4-3-050) to minimize loss and damages caused by flooding. Areas of Special Food Hazard are defined as the land in the floodplain subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (TMC 16.52.030 and RMC 4-3-050.1) Floodplain elevations were taken from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 53033C0976F and Map Number 53033C0957F. (FEMA 1995). The project team depicted the floodplain boundary in the project plans and floodplain figures using City of Renton GIS data (Renton 2015), which is a digital interpretation of the 1995 FEMA FIRM. A floodplain analysis was performed for the Lake to Sound — Segment A project and is provided in the Final Technical Information Report (Parametrix 2015b). 2.7 Impact Assessment Impacts on wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and associated buffers were assessed by overlaying the proposed design onto project base maps showing wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and buffer locations. Impact areas were determined as the area of intersection between the proposed design and the base maps. In some areas, multiple impact types (e.g., stream buffer and wetland buffer) were present in a single location. In this report, all stream and riparian buffer impacts are reported; however, for purposes of compensatory mitigation, overlapping impacts were assigned based on the following hierarchy: wetland, stream (below OHWM), wetland buffer, and stream buffer impacts. Areas of Special Flood Hazard impacts include any site activity that will place material at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation within a floodplain boundary. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 3. RESULTS This section describes overall site conditions as well as the specific condition of the wetlands, streams, FWHCAs, and buffers within the study area (as defined in Section 1.6). 3.1 General Habitat Characteristics Characteristics of the project area, including land use, topography, soils, vegetation, and fish and wildlife are described below. 3.1.1 Land Use The primary land use in the areas surrounding the project is commercial business and recreational park. In contrast to regional trends, much of the area consists of relatively undisturbed riparian hardwood forest. The area in Renton, south of the BNSF railroad corridor, is dominated by large trees and dense thickets of shrubby wetland (Black River Riparian Forest). The portion north of the railroad corridor, however, consists of an active concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses, supporting essentially no vegetation. The western end of the study area extends into Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. Additionally, some of the properties near the project area, specifically at the eastern end of the study area, have office park structures with associated driveways, parking lots, lawns, and ornamental plantings. 3.1.2 Topography The project area is generally flat, sloping gently from the east to the west. To the north is a gravel mining operation and an apartment complex, which are located at a considerably higher elevation than the project area. Additionally, there are steep slopes down from the banks of the Black River, south of the project area, between the Black River Pump Station and Monster Road. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 15 feet to 25 feet. 3.1,3 Soils The majority of the study area is mapped as Woodinville silt loam (USDA, NRCS 2010a). A small portion of the study area (near the northeastern most part) is mapped as Tukwila muck. The Woodinville series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in recent alluvium on flood plains and low terraces. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The Tukwila series consists of deep, very poorly drained soils formed in organic material that is stratified with diatomaceous earth and volcanic ash. Tukwila soils are in depressions on stream terraces and glacial uplands. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. Information on soils observed during field investigations is provided in Section 3.2. 3.1.4 Vegetation Vegetation within the project area consists of both wetland and upland species. Wetlands in the project area contain emergent, shrub, and forested habitats. Dominant vegetation includes reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red - osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Pacific willow (Salix lucida), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and narrow -leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia).Wetland habitats on the site are further detailed in Section 3.3. Upland plant communities within the project area consist primarily of upland forest and herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation includes red alder (Alnus rubra), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry, n ...0 nn,v I ece ,e„ non in,oronnn, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), black cottonwood, western redcedar, western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). The DNR Natural Heritage Program does not identify any rare plants within or in the vicinity of the project area. 3.1.5 Fish and Wildlife Wildlife species present in the study area are adapted to a wide variety of conditions. Characteristic species include European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), American robins (Turdus migratorius), American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), dark -eyed juncos (Junco hymalis), spotted towhees (Pipilo maculatus), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), black -capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), raccoons (Procyon lotor), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). The Duwamish and lower Green River serves as a migration and rearing area for anadromous salmonids, with no spawning habitat available (Williams et al. 1975). Three Pacific salmon species inhabit the Green/Duwamish River basin in significant numbers, Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), and chum (O. keta) salmon. Pink (0. gorbuscha) and sockeye (O. nerka) salmon are occasionally seen in the Green River basin, but the Green River is primarily a chum, coho, and Chinook salmon stream (Williams et al. 1975). Although sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in streams that are not tributaries to lakes, sockeye almost always require a rearing lake below or near their spawning area (Foerster 1972). Anadromous game fish using these waters include steelhead (0. mykiss), sea -run cutthroat trout (0. clarki clarki), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). WDFW (2011) data indicate that Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout have documented presence within the Black River in the study area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area; recent information and historical records (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975) indicate that Chinook do not use this area for these life history activities. However, very small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River Pump Station (the pump station cannot pass adult salmon downstream). Adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert, in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area, in fall 1997 (WSCC 2000). 3.2 Wetlands in Study Area The National Wetlands Inventory identifies four wetlands in the study area: three palustrine forested wetlands with a seasonally flooded hydrologic regime and one constructed riverine lower perennial unconsolidated bottom wetland with a permanently flooded hydrologic regime. Biologists identified and delineated five wetlands in their entirety (Wetlands 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and delineated portions of larger wetland complexes in the study area (Wetlands 1/2 Complex and BR) (Figures 3-1 through 3-3). All wetlands are within the city of Renton. Classifications of the delineated wetlands are provided in Table 3-1; wetland functions are summarized in Table 3-2. General wetland characteristics are discussed below. Also included in this report is specific information for each of the sample plots (Appendix A), wetland rating forms (Appendix B), wetland functional assessment forms (Appendix C), and site photographs (Appendix D). �_� Anril 2015 1 554-1521-084 lB/3T300B1 Lake to Sound Trail— Segment A City Boundary 'fiver •rdinar High Water Mar -a 5 e land Bu'e a) E -o C a� 0) o< o c� 0_ ake to Sound Trail— e.ment tel:• ping Min. Thin1f��i c a) E -0 £ CD 0) 0< a- QH i a e to oun. ral — e.ment •i Eii�l:i• nur.Fn� ou on Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Table 3-1. Summary of Wetlands in the Project Area Area Buffer Widthb Ecology USFWS HGM Wetland (acre) City of Rentona (feet) Rating' Classification° Classifications 1/2 Complex >50f II 100 II PFO Riverine/ Depressional 3 0.18 IV 50 IV PEM/PFO Depressional 4 0.04 IV 50 IV PFO Depressional 5 0.30 III 75 III PEM Depressional 6 0.83 III 75 III PEM Depressional 7 0.88 III 75 III PEM/PFO Slope BR -1.9 f II 100 II PFO Riverine/ Depressional a Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) b Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.iv.(c)) c Hruby(2004) d Cowardin et al. (1979) e Brinson (1993) f Wetland size estimated based on aerial interpretation PFO = palustrine forested, PEM = palustrine emergent Table 3-2. Summary of Wetland Functions for Wetlands in the Project Area Nutrient and Erosion Control Production of General Habitat for Flood Flow Sediment Toxicant and Shoreline Organic Matter Habitat Aquatic Wetland Alteration Removal Removal Stabilization and its Export Suitability Invertebrates 1/2 Complex High Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High 3 Low Low Low NA Moderate Low Low 4 Low Low Low NA NA Low Low 5 Moderate High High NA Low Low Low 6 Low Low Low NA Low Low Low 7 Low NA NA NA Low Low Low BR High Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate High Table 3-2. Summary of Wetland Functions for Wetlands in the Project Area (continued) Habitat for Habitat for Wetland- Wetland- Education Habitat for Associated Associated General Fish Native Plant or Scientific Uniqueness Wetland Amphibians Mammals Birds Habitat Richness Value and Heritage 1/2 Complex Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low NA NA 3 Low NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 Low NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Low NA Low NA NA NA NA 6 Low NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BR Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low NA NA Note: Functions assessed using WSDOT method (Null et al. 2000); see Appendix C for indicator characteristics present in each wetland. 1-6 dnriliM4 I SSd-1S91-r52d IR/ZTWMR1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 1/2 Complex Size: >50 acre (>2,178,000 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category II Ecology Rating: Category II Buffer: 100 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Forested HGM Classification: Riverine/Depressional Sample Plots: W1-SP1, W1-SP2, W2-SP1, and W2-SP2 The Wetland 1/2 Complex is located west and east of the north end of Naches Avenue SW and north of the Black River, extending outside the study area to the south and east (Figure 3-3)„ Wetland 1/2 Complex was initially delineated as two separate wetlands in the field, but after further review of hydrologic conditions and connections, it was determined to be one wetland complex. Wetland hydrology is supported by overbank flow from the Black River, stormwater runoff from nearby surfaces, and a shallow groundwater table. A large openwater area (Black River) located upgradient of the Black River Pump Station is associated with the Wetland 1/2 Complex. Much of the interior of the Wetland 1/2 Complex is seasonally inundated, while some outer portions are saturated. Inundation was observed throughout most of the wetland with depths of up to 12 inches of water. The wetland drains to the Black River, which meets the Green River near the western portion of the study area. The Wetland 1/2 Complex is composed of a forested community. Vegetation is dominated by black cottonwood, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, red alder, Pacific willow, and common Iadyfern (Athyrium filix-femina). Soil west and south of the proposed trail (W1-SP1) was examined to a depth of 20 inches, consisting of two layers. The top layer is an 18-inch dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) clay loam and the lower layer is a gray (2.5Y 6/1) clay loam. East of the proposed trail (W2-SP1), the top layer is a 9-inch very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) redoximorphic features. The lower layer is a gray (10YR 6/1) silty clay loam. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer surrounding the Wetland 1/2 Complex consists of generally disturbed areas of upland grasses and forbs near the existing gravel maintenance road to the east and north, and forested areas closer to the wetland. Vegetation in the generally forested buffer includes red alder, bigleaf maple, western swordfern, salmonberry, black cottonwood, red elderberry, and Himalayan blackberry. A portion of the buffer located north of Wetland 1 and adjacent to an existing gravel maintenance road has been planted with native vegetation and includes western redcedar, salmonberry, grand fir (Abies grandis), and bigleaf maple. Other portions of the buffer north of the Wetland 1/2 Complex have historically been filled with asphalt, concrete rubble, and other debris. The Wetland 1/2 Complex is a palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a riverine/depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, the Wetland 1/2 Complex is rated a Category II. The wetland scored 56 points on Ecology's rating form (22 points for water quality, 16 points for hydrologic functions, and 18 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 100-foot buffer for Category II wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). Anril 7(115 1 ccd-1571-(1Rd (R/aTa(1(1R1 ]_7 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 3 Size: 0.18 acre (7,625 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category IV Ecology Rating: Category IV Buffer: 50 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Scrub -shrub /Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W3-SP1 and W3-SP2 Wetland 3 is located north of Wetland 1 and south of the existing gravel maintenance road and BNSF rail tracks (Figure 3-3). A portion of Wetland 3 is adjacent to the maintenance road. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water coming from a culvert located north of the wetland under the BNSF rail tracks. The source appears to be surface runoff from the concrete recycling plant to the north. Soils were saturated, and some pockets of inundation were observed in channels and micro - depressions. The wetland is seasonally saturated. Water flows from Wetland 3 into a small drainage channel that drains to Wetland 1. Wetland 3 consists of a shrub community and an emergent community. The emergent community is dominated by reed canarygrass and the shrub community is dominated by young Oregon ash with some Himalayan blackberry. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of four layers that appear to have been historically disturbed. Soils examined in Wetland 3 are composed of a 2-inch layer of duff above a 6-inch layer of dark gray (5Y 4/1) clay loam. Beneath those layers is a 6-inch layer of dark gray (5Y 4/1) gravelly clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) redoximorphic features over a 4-inch layer of dark gray (5Y 4/1) sandy clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) redoximorphic features. Some areas of the wetland contain debris in the soil. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 3 consists primarily of upland grasses and forbs on fill. The buffer is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and black cottonwood. The soils have been historically disturbed and contain asphalt, concrete, and other construction debris. Wetland 3 is a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 3 is rated a Category IV. The wetland scored 29 points on Ecology's rating form (14 points for water quality, 5 points for hydrologic functions, and 10 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 50-foot buffer for Category IV wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). 3-8 April 2015 1 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 4 Size: 0.04 acre (1,700 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category IV Ecology Rating: Category IV Buffer: 50 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Forested HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W4-SP1 and W4-SP2 Wetland 4 is located just southwest of Wetland 3 and north of the Wetland 1/2 Complex (Figure 3-3). Wetland 4 likely was originally excavated. Wetland hydrology is supported primarily by runoff from the fill surrounding Wetland 4 and possibly from a subsurface connection to Wetland 3. Wetland 4 is seasonally saturated. Soils were saturated in the wetland and some pockets of inundation were observed in small depressions. Wetland 4 does not have an outlet. Wetland 4 consists of a forest community dominated by Oregon ash and black cottonwood. The understory is thinly populated with reed canarygrass. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of two layers. Soils examined in Wetland 4 are composed of a 10-inch layer of dark gray (5Y 4/1) clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Beneath this layer is an 8-inch layer of dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 4 consists of an upland forest community dominated by black cottonwood and Himalayan blackberry. The soils have been disturbed and contain asphalt, concrete, and other construction debris. Wetland 4 is a palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMIP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 4 is rated a Category IV. The wetland scored 25 points on Ecology's rating form (10 points for water quality, 9 points for hydrologic functions, and 6 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 50-foot buffer for Category IV wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). Anril 1MC 1 SU_7[11_n4A In/]T7nnn1 Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 5 Size: 0.30 acre (13,192 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category III Ecology Rating: Category III Buffer: 75 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W5-SP1 and W5-SP2 Wetland 5 is located north of the existing gravel maintenance road, east of Monster Road, and south of the BNSF rail tracks (Figure 3-1). The wetland is possibly a created feature because the slopes are lined with quarry spalls and there are culverts at the inlet and the outlet, as well as a catch basin located just south of the wetland. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water coming from a culvert located north of the wetland under the BNSF rail tracks outside of the study area. The source is likely overflow from detention ponds located on the concrete recycling plant to the north. Wetland 5 is occasionally inundated. The wetland was inundated to a depth of approximately 18 inches during one site investigation, while soils were saturated with no inundation during another site visit. Water flows from Wetland 5 into a culvert that drains to the buffer of the Black River to the south. Wetland 5 consists of an emergent community, although shrubs are located along the eastern boundary. The emergent community is dominated by narrow -leaf cattail. The dominant shrub along the boundary is red -osier dogwood. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of a single layer. Soils examined in Wetland 5 are composed of a dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) sandy loam with strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 5 consists primarily of upland shrubs and young trees on fill. The buffer is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and red alder. The soils have been disturbed and contain quarry spalls and other rocks and debris. Wetland 5 is a palustrine emergent wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 5 is rated a Category III. The wetland scored 49 points on Ecology's rating form (22 points for water quality, 16 points for hydrologic functions, and 11 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 75-foot buffer for Category III wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). a-10 April 2015 1 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 6 Size: 0.83 acre (36,210 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category III Ecology Rating: Category III Buffer: 75 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W6-SP1 and W6-SP2 Wetland 6 is located in the fork of the existing gravel maintenance roads west of the Black River Pump Station (Figure 3-1). A portion of Wetland 6 is adjacent to the maintenance road. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water runoff from the surrounding compacted soils. Soils were saturated in portions of the wetland and inundated in two small depressions. Wetland 6 does not have an inlet or outlet and is seasonally saturated. Wetland 6 consists of an emergent community dominated by reed canarygrass. A small stand of black cottonwood is located on the western edge. The sample plot was examined to a depth of 1.8 inches and consisted of two layers that appear to have been historically disturbed. Soils examined in Wetland 6 are composed of a 4-inch layer of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam with dark olive brown (2.5Y 3/3) redoximorphic features. Beneath this layer is a 14- inch layer of dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) fine sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 6 consists primarily of upland grasses and forbs on fill. The buffer is dominated by bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), tall fescue, Himalayan blackberry, and black cottonwood. The buffers are dissected on three sides of the wetland by the gravel maintenance roads. Wetland 6 is a palustrine emergent wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 6 is rated a Category III. The wetland scored 41 points on Ecology's rating form (16 points for water quality, 17 points for hydrologic functions, and 8 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 75-foot buffer for Category III wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland 7 Size: 0.88 acre (38,508 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category III Ecology Rating: Category III Buffer: 75 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Emergent/Palustrine Forested HGM Classification: Depressional Sample Plots: W7-SP1 through W7-SP6 Wetland 7 is located south of the existing gravel trail, northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River (Figure 3-2). Wetland 7 is located topographically above the existing trail. Wetland hydrology is supported by precipitation and surface water runoff from the surrounding compacted soils. Soils were saturated in portions of the wetland and inundated in small depressions and shallow, narrow drainages throughout the wetland. Wetland 7 likely drains to the south and east below the soil surface and is seasonally saturated. Wetland 7 contains emergent and forested communities. The emergent portion is dominated by reed canarygrass and the forested portion is dominated by a stand of red alders on the eastern side of the wetland. The sample plot located within the emergent community was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of two layers. Soils examined in Wetland 7 are composed of an 8-inch layer of dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) redoximorphic features. Beneath this layer is a 10-inch layer of dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) redoximorphic features. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer of Wetland 7 consists primarily of upland grasses and forbs to the north and west, shrubs to the south, and a narrow forested stretch to the east. The buffer is dominated by reed canarygrass, black cottonwood, and Himalayan blackberry. Wetland 7 is a palustrine emergent/palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland 7 is rated a Category III. The wetland scored 37 points on Ecology's rating form (16 points for water quality, 4 points for hydrologic functions, and 17 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 75-foot buffer for Category III wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). April 2015 1 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Wetland BR Size: >1.5 acres (>65,340 square feet) City of Renton Rating: Category II Ecology Rating: Category II Buffer: 100 feet USFWS Classification: Palustrine Forested/Palustrine Emergent HGM Classification: Riverine/Depressional Sample Plots: WBR-SP1 and WBR-SP2 Wetland BR is southeast of the existing gravel trail, east-northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River (Figure 3-2). Wetland BR is hydrologically associated with the Black River and is part of the greater Black River Riparian Forest. Wetland hydrology is supported by overbank flow from the Black River, stormwater runoff from nearby surfaces, and a shallow groundwater table. A large openwater area (Black River) located upgradient of the Black River Pump Station is associated with Wetland BR. Much of the interior of Wetland BR is seasonally inundated, while some outer portions are saturated. Shallow inundation was observed throughout most of the wetland with depths of up to 2 inches of water. The wetland drains to the Black River, which meets the Green River near the western portion of the study area. Wetland BR is composed of forested and emergent communities. Vegetation is dominated by red alder, Pacific willow, reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and common Iadyfern in the forested community. The emergent community is dominated by common cattail. Soil in Wetland BR was examined to a depth of 18 inches and consisted of three layers. The top layer is a 5-inch very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) silt loam with organics. The middle layer is a dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) clay loam with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic features. The lower layer is also a dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) soil with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic features, but has a texture of loamy sand. Soils in the wetland are mapped by the NRCS as Woodinville silt loam. The buffer surrounding Wetland BR consists of a slope primarily dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Some planted trees are located on the slope as well. They incllude western redcedar, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Much of the buffer has been historically disturbed. Wetland BR is a palustrine forested wetland under the Cowardin (1979) system, and is a riverine/depressional wetland under the HGM system (Brinson 1993). According to the City of Renton (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.ii) and Ecology, Wetland BR is rated a Category II. The wetland scored 54 points on Ecology's rating form (24 points for water quality, 12 points for hydrologic functions, and 18 points for habitat functions) (Appendix B). The City of Renton requires a 100-foot buffer for Category II wetlands with a habitat score of less than 20 points (SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d.iv). n ...i1 fln1C 1 CCA_1C71 _non /O/OTOnn01 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 3.3 Streams Additional information is provided in the Stream Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015c). 3.3.1 Green and Black River Basins The Black River Basin makes up part of the Green River Watershed, which also includes Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek, Soos Creek, Jenkins Creek, Covington Creek, Newaukum Creek, Crisp Creek, and other tributaries. The Green River Watershed contains a population of about 400,000 people and is approximately 492 square miles (King County 2012). Land use varies considerably throughout the watershed. In the Upper Green River sub -watershed it is used primarily for forest productions. The Middle Green sub -watershed is a mix of residential, commercial forestry, and agricultural land uses. The Lower Green River sub -watershed, in which the project area is located, is a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial land uses. The Green-Duwamish Estuary sub -watershed is a mix of residential and industrial uses (King County 2012). The project site is located within WRIA 9, the Green-Duwamish River basin. The Duwamish River is defined as the portion of the Green/Duwamish River system downstream from the confluence of the Black River (River Mile [RM] 11.0) to Elliott Bay (RM 0.0), while the Green River extends upstream from the Black River. For this report, the term `Duwamish River' pertains to the first 11 miles of the river system, while the term 'Green River' pertains to both the portion of river above RM 11.0 and the river system as a whole. Historically, the Green, White, Black, and Cedar rivers flowed into the Duwamish River, and the system drained an area of over 1,600 square miles. In the early 1900s, the Black, White, and Cedar rivers were diverted, reducing the Green River drainage over 60 percent to just 483 square miles (Blomberg 1988). Also, in 1913 the City of Tacoma constructed a diversion dam on the Green River, near the town of Palmer, at about RM 50.0. In 1963, the Howard Hanson Dam was built at RM 53.0. Both of these structures completely blocked fish migration to the upper Green River and its tributaries. Flow in the Green River is regulated by the operation of the Howard Hanson Dam. River velocities are dissipated as the river widens and currents converge with tidal pressures. Characterized by wet and dry seasons, discharge of the river varies seasonally. The wet season extends from November to July, and the dry season from August to October. The mean monthly flow rate in the lower Duwamish varies from 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August to 2,600 cfs in January. Stream banks are sloped and diked to contain flows of up to 11,000 cfs (Williams et al. 1975). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. The Lower Green River basin begins at the Auburn Narrows (RM 31) and continues to just downstream of the confluence with the Black River in Tukwila (RM 11). The lower Green River basin is composed of two areas that are split by the Black River basin to the north and the Mill Creek basin to the south. The lower Gren River basin is mostly on the urban side of the urban growth boundary and contains portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, and SeaTac. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural, as well as major highways, including Interstate 5. There are extensive areas of office/commercial and multi -family residential development. This area has developed rapidly over the past 20 years. Anril 201S 1 SS4-1S21-0841B/3T300B1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 3.3.2 Green River Stream Type The project alignment intersects the Green River at about RM 11.0 on the right bank of the river (see Figure 1-1). According to the DNR stream typing system, the Green River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, which also classifies the Green River as a Type S stream. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to the Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. Fish Habitat Identified limiting habitat factors in the lower Green River Watershed include (1) urbanization, water diversions, and revetments that have resulted in disconnection of the river from floodplain off -channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands, (2) reduction of large woody debris and associated instream complexity, such as pools and riffles, (3) creation of adult salmon migration problems due to low flows, (4) chronic water quality problems, and (5) severe reductions in riparian habitats and associated functions (WSCC 2000). Currently, the reach within the study area is used by all native anadromous salmonid species for rearing and migration (see Fish Presence below). Water Quality Conditions The Green River has no listed exceedances on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list within or immediately adjacent to the project limits (Ecology 2015). A 303(d) reach is located over 0.5 mile upstream from the project area, with recorded exceedances for stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform. Biological Conditions Fish Presence The Duwamish and lower Green River serves as a migration and rearing area for anadromous salmonids, with no spawning habitat available (Williams et al. 1975). Three Pacific salmon species inhabit the Green/Duwamish River basin in significant numbers: Chinook, coho, and chum salmon. Pink and sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in the Green River basin, but the Green River is primarily a chum, coho, and Chinook salmon stream (Williams et al. 1975). Although sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in streams that are not tributaries to lakes, sockeye almost always require a rearing lake below or near their spawning area (Foerster 1972). Other anadromous fish using these waters include steelhead, sea - run cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, and bull trout. Studies of juvenile salmonids in the Duwamish and lower Green River (Williams et al. 1975; Warner and Fritz 1995) have demonstrated the species presence, their timing within the project vicinity, and various characteristics of the fish. These investigations show that subyearling Chinook and chum salmon use shallow -water shoreline habitats of various characteristics during their migration to the ocean. Juvenile pink salmon are likely to be found in the same areas during their spring migration period. The young salmon appear to prefer relatively protected shorelines with gradual slopes and depths of Tess than about 6 feet. However, they are also found along hard, steep to vertical substrates that are either natural or artificial. The young salmon tend to remain close to the shoreline but apparently cross deep water at night (Stober et al. 1973; Bax et al. 1979). n.... nn, r I a n , En.. non in / rnnnn, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Yearling Chinook, steelhead, and coho also use shoreline areas but appear to be less shoreline -oriented than the subyearling migrants. The substantially larger yearlings are commonly found in the near; surface water well away from the shoreline. Subadult and adult bull trout and Dolly Varden are likely to forage within the project vicinity during their late spring to summer migrations into Puget Sound. Juvenile salmon migrating past the project site include Chinook produced from the Soos Creek Hatchery, located about 39 miles upstream from the site. The juvenile migration period potentially extends from late February through mid -June. During this period, wild fish commonly occur farther upstream and are more numerous in tributaries compared to hatchery fish. Stream Buffer Conditions Overstory riparian vegetation on the right bank of the river is generally limited to a relatively narrow (20 to 50 feet wide) zone with a sparse overstory of deciduous and coniferous trees. Trees include scattered Douglas fir, black cottonwood, western redcedar, and non-native alder (Alnus spp.) and spruce (Picea spp.) species. Understory vegetation consists primarily of shrubs, with sumac (Rhus spp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), red -osier dogwood, bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and substantial amounts of Himalayan blackberry. Invasive vegetation dominates the outer portion of the riparian zone, including a large amount of Himalayan blackberry and various grass species. A single line of ornamental trees is present on the south edge of the riparian zone, directly adjacent to Fort Dent Park. In addition, portions of the riparian zone consist of patches of bare ground. The vegetation is not adequate to provide the full range of riparian functions, although low to moderate levels of stream shading, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, leaf litter production, and bank stability are provided by the existing riparian zone. Much of the shrub vegetation overhangs the river, offering some overhead cover for fish. 3.3.3 Black River Stream Type According to the DNR stream typing system, the Black River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdictions of the Cities of Tukwila and Renton (see Figure 1-1), although the majority of the Black River is within Renton. Within Renton, the Black River is classified as a Class 1 water (shoreline of the state) (Renton SMP 4-3-090 F.1). The regulated buffer within shoreline jurisdiction (the Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer width) includes lands within 100 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the OHWM. Within Tukwila, the stream is classified as a Type S (shoreline of the state) stream. The regulated buffer extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to the Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. Fish Habitat The Black River enters the Green River near Tukwila, on the right bank, at RM 11.0. On the Black River, a dam and pump station, which is approximately 600 feet upstream of Monster Road, prevent tidal upstream inundation of the river channel and maintain downstream flow, regardless of tidal influences. A Denil fishway allows upstream fish passage at the pump station, and an air lift pump arrangement aids downstream migrants in passing the structure during the spring months (Harza 1995). 2-1 F Anril 7015 1 554-1521-0R4 (R/3T3006) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The project site is located in a developed setting, zoned industrial, with large amounts of impervious surface within the project vicinity. A large gravel pit (Stoneway Concrete) is located north of the Monster Road Bridge; warehouses and an industrial operation are located to the north and south of the trail alignment; and railroad tracks run both parallel and perpendicular to the trail alignment. Instream habitat within the project area is dominated by run -type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths of greater than 6 feet. At the time of the site visit (February 2011), the wetted width was approximately 25 feet, and no pools or riffles were observed. Bank -full width was estimated at 30 feet. Streambed material consisted almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a 50-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. Underneath the Monster Road Bridge, both streambanks are 100 percent armored with riprap, from the edge of the water to the bridge deck. No LWD was observed in the study area, and the presence of the pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Within the study area, the Black River would probably be used for migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is somewhat limited. Water Quality Conditions The Black River from RM 0.25 to 1.44 is on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list for exceeding the fecal coliform criteria (Ecology 2015). This exceedance includes the reach of the Black River between Monster Road Bridge and the Black River Pump Station. Biological Conditions Fish Presence WDFW (2014, 2015) data indicate that Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout have been documented in the Black River within the study area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area. Recent information, as well as historical records (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975), indicate that Chinook do not use this area for spawning and rearing. However, very small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River Pump Station (the pump station cannot pass adult salmon downstream). In the fall of 1997, adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area (WSCC 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River and there are no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 1998). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by this species (Harza 1995; Rieman and Chandler 1999). Stream Buffer Conditions The stream buffers in the Black River within the project area are relatively degraded, of limited widths, and composed of herbaceous, shrub, and non-native species. Downstream of Monster Road Bridge, the stream buffer widths vary between 50 and 10C) feet on the north side of the river to about 75 to 150 feet on the south side. Upstream of the bridge, vegetated buffer widths average from 100 to 150 feet on both sides of the Black River. The vegetated buffer consists of lightly forested and herbaceous plant communities, although the forested zone is restricted to within 50 feet of the river. Vegetation includes April 2015 i 554-1521-084 (B/3T3008) 0 1, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County red alder, tall fescue, salmonberry, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, western redcedar, western swordfern, bigleaf maple, red elderberry, and snowberry. Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or LWD recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. 3.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Natural Area by the City of Renton and is therefore considered a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area. Regulations for Class 1 Streams and Lakes that would serve as FWHCAs are provided in the Renton SMP development and use standards, including but not limited to SMP 4-3-090 D.2.c.iii. The Black River Riparian Forest is primarily forested riparian and wetland habitat, which supports a diverse wildlife community, including bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and a colony of great blue herons (Ardea herodias) that has actively nested here every year since 1986 and has been one of the largest such colonies in the Puget Sound region (Stenberg 2007). Data from the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species program indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by many waterfowl species, including bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwall (Anas strepera), wigeon (Anas americana), scaup (Aythya affinis), and green -winged teal (Anas crecca) (WDFW 2011a). Other bird species commonly found in riparian and wetland habitats in the Puget Lowlands include osprey (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and a variety of songbirds. Mammals present may include coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), beavers (Castor canadensis), mice (Mus musculus), voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and moles (Scalopus aquaticus). Reptiles and amphibians that use these habitats include garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis), Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudacris regilla), and long -toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum). 3.5 Areas of Special Flood Hazard Portions of the Segment A trail alignment are located within the Green and Black River floodplains (Figure 3-4). The threshold discharge areas (TDAs) identified for the site are depicted in Figure 3-4 and described in the Technical Information Report (Parametrix 2015b). The length of trail within Areas of Special Flood Hazard, as well as the cut and fill quantities, are provided in Section 4-4. 3-1 R April 2015 1554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Sources: King County, City of Renton, VVDFW 2014, WSDOT. oarametri (0(0 .0 0 43 3 tic 0 C 0 co CO CO M 1 ° CI 0, 2 P. 2 in g.(0— it co co 0 0 cin co 03 0 o 0 0 LLUc _ 0 U- 0. a) c .C13 cn CO _V .C)JD 13) cT3 03 7 D Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 4. IMPACTS This chapter describes the extent and type of permanent and temporary impacts on critical areas and associated buffers that would occur as a result of the proposed project (Figures 4-1 through 4-9). 4.1 Wetlands No wetlands would be permanently or temporarily affected as a result of this project. However, some impacts on wetland buffers are unavoidable (Table 4-1; Figures 4-1 through 4-9). Some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers occurs in the project area. Where this overlap occurs, impacts on these areas were calculated as wetland buffers. Table 4-1. Wetland and Buffer Impacts Wetland Buffer Temp. Impacts Perm. Impacts Temp. Impacts City of Renton Perm. Impacts acres acres acres acres Wetland Rating' (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) 1/2 Complex II 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.27 (11,941) 0.07 (2,848) 3 IV 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (2,695) 0.01 (600) 4 iv 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 5 III 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.14 (6,154) 0.02 (980) 6 III 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.01 (531) 0.02 (874) 7 III 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) BR II 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) Totalb 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.49 (21,321) 0.12 (5,302) a Renton SMP (4-3-090.D.2.d.ii) b Total acreage of impact was determined by converting the square footage of the total impact into acres and then rounding to the nearest 0.01 acre. Total quantities include buffer impact areas that occur where wetland and stream buffers overlap. Perm. = Permanent, Temp. =Temporary 4.1.1 Permanent Wetland Impacts No wetlands would be permanently affected as a result of this project. 4.1.2 Permanent Wetland Buffer Impacts Permanent impacts on the buffers of four wetlands would result from minor grading to construct a modular block retaining wall and widen the trail (see Figures 4-1 through 4-9). A total of approximately 0.49 acre (21,321 square feet) of impacts on project area wetland buffers are anticipated as a result of this project. This total includes those buffers that overlap with stream buffers. These buffers are generally low functioning and are composed primarily of grasses and forbs along the existing maintenance road edge. These impacts would affect the buffers of the Wetland 1/2 Complex, Wetland 3, Wetland 5, and Wetland 6 (Table 4-1). n n.il nnnc 1 crn lc. , non /o/otsn n Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 4.1.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts No wetlands would be temporarily affected as a result of this project. 4.1.4 Temporary Wetland Buffer Impacts Temporary impacts on wetland buffers would occur from construction -related activities including, but not limited to, clearing vegetation. A total of approximately 0.12 acre (5,302 square feet) of temporary impacts on wetland buffers are anticipated as a result of the construction of the Segment A portion of the Lake to Sound Trail. This total includes those buffers that overlap with stream buffers. These impacts would affect the buffers of the Wetland 1/2 Complex, Wetland 3, Wetland 5, and Wetland 6 (Table 4-1). 4.2 Streams This section describes the extent and type of temporary and permanent effects on streams and aquatic resources that could occur as a result of the proposed project. The project would result in 0.60 acre (25,926 square feet) of permanent impacts and 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impacts on stream buffers of streams in the study area (Table 4-2; Figures 4-1 through 4-5). Impacts that would occur where stream and wetland buffers overlap were calculated as wetland buffer impacts. Table 4-2. Stream and Buffer Impacts Stream Buffer City of Tukwila (T) Temp. Impacts Perm. Impacts Temp. Impacts 'Renton (R)b Perm. Impacts acres acres acres acres Stream Typing (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Green River 5 (T) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (2,418) 0.01 (559) Black River 5 (T)/1 (R) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.54 (23,508) 0.09 (3,896) Total ` 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.60 (25,926) 0.10 (4,455) a b Stream typing according to Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7) Stream typing according to Renton SMP (4-3-090 F.1) Total acreage of impact was determined by converting the square footage of the total impact into acres and then rounding to the nearest 0.01 acre. Total quantities do not include areas that occur where wetland and stream buffers overlap; these areas were calculated as wetland impacts (see Table 4-1). Perm. = Permanent, Temp. =Temporary 4.2.1 Permanent Stream Impacts The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of any stream; therefore, the project would not result in any stream fill, nor would alterations to fish passage structures be required. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River would be 109 feet long and 12 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river would be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 528 square feet of the river would be affected by shading from the bridge. Shade from overwater structures such as bridges can be a migration barrier for fish. Juvenile salmonids avoid dark, shaded areas under structures, resulting in loss of access to habitat, blockage of movement, and potentially increased exposure to predators. In addition, shade from overwater structures can provide hiding cover for some non-native species, such as smallmouth bass, that prey on native fish. ,1-7 A nri l 7n15 1554-15 71-nR4 I R /3T3nnRl Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A d Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact 7 ti E a E Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Stream Buffer Permanent Impact w LL q-q einfiu aag aullyo;eyy / / 125' Buff / 7-4; BJnRIJ .'IQI1Q MRW 1IJ R d E Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Clear and Grubbing Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Stream Buffer Permanent Impact g-q 0 aaye,001 I a --A- s...a.. sue.. ..........,... --- I lcg E n E Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact co m Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A a E E cg Z E E a I a I a 0 m U t Wetland BR CD 2 UI E n Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Stream Buffer Permanent Impact U W d I lye s Tp m 7. d E Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact da a 1,7 8 m Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Stream Buffer Permanent Impact 8 1 8 1 1 •.I m E E Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Stream Buffer Permanent Impact uJ a Q1 I Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The Black River is not considered to be an important migratory corridor for salmonids because the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the study area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. In addition, reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are unlikely to provide suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon or high -quality spawning or rearing habitat for steelhead. Moreover, the narrow footprint and north - south orientation of the bridge (minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day) would further diminish the potential for the structure to cast shade that presents a migration barrier for any juvenile salmonids that may pass through the project action area. All bridge components spanning the Black River would be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits issued for the project. Per WAC 220-660-030, the HPA would include provisions designed to ensure no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life. Compliance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits would be expected to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects resulting from bridge construction. Any unavoidable impacts would be addressed through compensatory mitigation. 4.2.2 Permanent Stream Buffer impacts Permanent impacts on stream buffers would occur where the proposed trail alignment encroaches into currently vegetated areas within the regulatory buffers on the Green River and the Black River. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to permanent impacts would be 0.73 acre (31,641 square feet) (see Figures 4-2 through 4-5). Of this area, 0.13 acre (5,715 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.60 acre (25,926 square feet) of permanent impacts to riparian buffers (Table 4-2). Permanent riparian buffer impacts would occur along the Black River and the Green River. In almost all cases, the quality of the riparian buffer that would be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Much of the riparian impact area along the Black River consists of grass or non-native herbaceous and shrub species. However, there would be removal of some scattered larger trees (approximately 10 trees of greater than 4 inches diameter at breast height from the riparian buffer). The existing buffer functions are still somewhat degraded, compared to fully forested conditions, and these functions are provided at a low or moderate level. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is urban, consisting primarily of the gravel surface of the existing maintenance road. Where the existing surface is not composed of gravel, a worn dirt trail exists and is largely free of trees and shrubs. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.44 acre and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the study area. Some low -growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy may be slightly reduced in some places. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or process (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; LWD recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) would result from permanent project - related clearing. No substantial effects on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams are anticipated. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 4.2.3 Temporary Stream Impacts The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of any stream; therefore, the project would not temporarily affect any streams. 4.2.4 Temporary Stream Buffer Impacts Temporary impacts on stream buffers would occur from minor clearing and grading during project construction, as well as from potential erosion, sedimentation, and noise disturbance during construction. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to temporary impacts would be 0.11 acre (5,312 square feet) (see Figures 4-2 through 4-5). Approximately 0.01 acre of this area (857 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impacts to riparian buffers (Table 4-2). Temporary riparian buffer impacts would occur along a very small portion of the Green River, with the vast majority of impacts occurring within the Black River riparian buffer. Because the portions of the affected buffer are degraded (as discussed above) and these riparian areas would be replanted once construction is complete, temporary clearing is not expected to have a substantial effect on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams. Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to project area streams could increase turbidity and total suspended solid levels. However, no earthwork or riparian clearing would occur within 25 feet of the OHWM of the Green River or below the OHWM of the Black River. Along most of the proposed trail corridor, no ground -disturbing work would take place within 40 feet of any streams. Furthermore, any construction -related effects would be avoided through the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), including temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) and spill prevention control and countermeasures plans. 4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Additional information is in the Stream Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015c). The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Natural Area by the City of Renton and is therefore considered a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area. The clearing and grading for trail construction would permanently convert some existing vegetated cover within the area of the project footprint to a developed condition. Nearly all clearing would occur along the existing maintenance road, most of which consists of hardened surfaces or low functioning vegetated cover dominated by non-native plants. Some low -growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, and the overhead canopy may be slightly reduced in some places. No impacts on wetlands or streams would occur. See the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report (Parametrix 2015a) for additional information about potential impacts to FWHCAs associated with wildlife species. 4.4 Areas of Special Flood Hazard Approximately 1,050 feet of the Segment A trail alignment near the western end of the proposed trail corridor (from A -Line Station 1+00 to Station 11+50) would be below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Other trail segments in TDA 3 and TDA 5 would be located within the mapped floodplain of the Black River (Figure 3-4) but the elevation of the constructed trail would be above the floodplain elevation (Parametrix 2015b). April 7015 1 554-1 571-ng4 lR/3TRnnR1 4-21 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County The proposed vertical alignment of the trail would approximate existing grade as close as possible while providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. Between A - Line Stations 1+00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. Detailed calculations and further information are provided in the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Final Technical Information Report (Parametrix 2015b). A_77 A ...:� ,Mc I an lc,a non In NTonnn, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 5. MITIGATION The Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A project would mitigate impacts on wetlands and streams in accordance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established by NEPA, CWA, and local wetland protection programs (TMC 18.45 and Renton SMP 4.3.090). According to NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] paragraphs 1508.20), the definition of mitigation is as follows: 1. Avoiding the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing critical area and buffer impacts. Wetlands and streams in the study area have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible with no permanent or temporary impacts anticipated. King County would apply the following strategies to critical area and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: • Use a retaining wall to narrow the trail footprint in the vicinity of wetland boundaries and some riparian buffers. • Limit earthwork near streams and wetlands to the dry season to reduce the potential for sediment runoff. • Construct the trail on an existing gravel maintenance road to minimize impacts on functioning riparian buffers. • Where feasible, widen the trail on the north side of the existing corridor to minimize impacts on buffers and wildlife habitat. • Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground -disturbing activities. 5.2 Restoration of Temporary Impacts All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. n...11'1Me 1 eee ,cn, non in/oronnn, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation Because permanent impacts on wetland buffers and stream buffers could not be completely avoided, King County would replace the buffer area and functions lost through compensatory mitigation. Mitigation measures for offsetting these impacts on wetland buffers and stream buffers are described below and included in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix E). 5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation The City of Renton SMP (4-3-090 D.2.d.x.e) states that "Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species." Therefore, impacts on wetland buffers would be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 at a minimum. Stream buffer would be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 at a minimum, as well. No wetlands were observed in the portion of the study area within the city of Tukwila. The following provisions of RMC 4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites apply to the proposed development F. Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of an Existing Structure or Site Major Alteration Expansion of impervious surface by more than 25%; Install site improvements that protect the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either: o Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required* buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required* setback and buffer. This requirement is met by a revegetation plan for areas between the trail and OHWM where the trail is within the 100 foot Vegetation Conservation Area of the Black River. This provision will be implemented for wetland buffers in conjunction with RMC 4-03-090.D.2.d.xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain effective buffer conditions and functions, a vegetation management plan shall be required for all buffer areas, to include: (a) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including trees and understory; if existing tree cover is less than a density of twenty (20) trees per acre, planting shall be required consisting of seedlings at a density of three hundred (300) stems per acre or the equivalent; (b) Providing a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the buffer if existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing adjacent development from within the buffer. Planting shall be required equivalent to two (2) rows of three feet (3') high stock of native S-7 Aoril 2015 1554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County evergreens at a triangular spacing of fifteen feet (15'), or three (3) rows of gallon containers at a triangular spacing of eight feet (8'). Fencing may be required if needed to block headlights or other sources of light or to provide an immediate effective visual screen; (c) Providing a plan for control of invasive weeds, and removal of existing invasive species; (d) Providing for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least five (5) years, except this provision may be waived for single family residential lots at the discretion of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. King County developed plans for habitat improvements or restoration to mitigate the effects of the project. This mitigation plan focuses on providing compensatory mitigation measures for riparian and wetland buffers at equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. The mitigation sites would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. The riparian buffer component of the overall mitigation would consist of planting native trees and shrubs within the regulated riparian buffer of a fish -bearing stream (Black River). Although mitigation was considered upstream or downstream of the project, or at a similar subbasin in the same geographic area, on -site mitigation (within the project area and regulated buffer of the Black River) was selected as the preferred option. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter that are removed within sensitive areas or shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila would be replaced as prescribed by TMC requirements. 5.3.2 Site Selection The regulations of the local jurisdictions (Cities of Tukwila and Renton) identify a preference for compensatory mitigation to be conducted within the same subbasin and on site (TMC 18.45.090 F.5; Renton SMP 4-3-090 D.2.d x.(i)). However, the Cities may consider off -site compensation if the applicant demonstrates that this provides a greater ecological benefit. King County considered multiple mitigation opportunities located on the project site. The identification of available parcels for mitigation is dependent upon size, current site conditions, land use, real estate conditions, local jurisdiction code, and future land use proposals. Based on the Cities' preference for on -site mitigation, project staff first considered opportunities within the trail right-of-way for compensatory mitigation. On -site mitigation opportunities within the trail corridor are constrained by the narrow linear right-of-way, limited buffer area available for enhancement, and adjacent land uses and features (e.g., railroad tracks). Off -site opportunities in the same subbasin and out of the subbasin (in the same WRIA) were also explored. The proposed mitigation sites are located outside of the trail right-of-way, but near the trail (Appendix E). The first site (Mitigation Site 1) was selected because it is located in the vicinity of both stream (Black River) buffer and wetland (Wetlands 7 and BR) buffer, dominated by invasive species, and large enough to accommodate all of the project's wetland buffer mitigation needs at a single location. The second site (Mitigation Site 2) was selected because it is within the buffer of the Black River and adjacent to the trail. The proposed mitigation sites are located within the city of Renton and are owned by the City of Renton. Currently the proposed Mitigation Site 1 is being used as a natural area and is part of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation Site 2 is on the sloped banks of the Black River at the western end of the Black River Riparian Forest. 5.3.3 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions Proposed Mitigation Site 1 is located between the Black River, Wetland 7, and Wetland BR. It is dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Anril Jnig 1 SSd-1SJ1-f1Rd IR/1TWIR1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Proposed Mitigation Site 2 is located northeast of Monster Road, north and south of the Black River. It is dominated by Himalayan blackberry with butterfly bush (Buddleja sp.). Few native species are present in low numbers including Scouler's willow (Salixscouleriana), snowberry, Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii) at the water edge. A few trees are scattered on the site, primarily black cottonwood. The top of bank on the south side of the river consists of grasses and forbs, including poison hemlock. Rock and broken pieces of concrete are on top of and within the soil. 5.3.4 Proposed IVMitigation Proposed conceptual mitigation includes enhancement of approximately 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.38 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 1 and enhancement of approximately 0.22 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 2 (see Appendix E). The proposed enhancement at both mitigation sites would include a combination of invasive vegetation removal, tilling of soil, addition of compost (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. Riparian mitigation may also consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that would benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. The goal of the mitigation effort is to augment the Black River corridor by establishing native vegetation and enhancing buffer functions of the stream and Wetland 7 in areas dominated by invasive species. These efforts would meld with previous and future enhancement activities performed by others. Impacts to FWHCAs, outside of wetland and stream buffers, would be compensated for with additional plantings where views toward the heron nesting colony are not already obscured by existing vegetation. Such plantings, combined with fence installation along the southern edge of the alignment of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, are expected to reduce the potential for disturbance to wildlife in the natural area. These plantings would be qualitatively monitored for general health and rigor in conjunction with the wetland buffer compensatory mitigation monitoring (qualitative) during Years 1, 2, and 3. 5.3.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The overall goal of the mitigation is to replace the habitats and functions lost as a result of the project. The proposed mitigation would accomplish this by enhancing 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of stream buffer. Specific goals and objectives formulated to achieve this result are presented below. Mitigation Goal Goal: Enhance 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of stream buffer to native forested upland. Achievement of this goal is expected to increase the production of organic matter by planting trees and shrubs in the enhanced buffer; increase wildlife habitat; and improve biological diversity by planting with a variety of native riparian plant species. Mitigation Objectives and Performance Standards Objective 1: Establish a minimum of 0.49 acre of forested wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of forested stream buffer by planting native trees and shrubs. C_A Anril 1111C 1 ccA_1 1..CQA (n/2T2nnP1 Performance Standards: Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Survival of planted woody species in enhanced wetland buffer and stream buffer areas will be at least 80 percent. Native woody species will achieve a minimum of 35 percent areal cover in the enhanced wetland buffer and stream buffer areas. Native woody species will achieve a minimum of 60 percent areal cover in the enhanced wetland buffer and stream buffer areas. Objective 2: Limit invasive non-native species throughout the mitigation site planting areas. Performance Standard: Years 1-5 Himalayan blackberry, cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), butterfly bush, poison hemlock, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and reed canarygrass will not exceed 20 percent areal cover in all planting areas. Objective 3: Provide upland wildlife habitat. Performance Standard: Increase in areal cover of native woody species in the planted buffer, as measured in Objective 1 to be used as a surrogate to indicate increasing habitat functions. Objective 4: Protect the mitigation site from anthropogenic disturbance. Performance Standard: Years 1-5 Conduct yearly qualitative monitoring to assess the status of the sites during the 5-year monitoring period for human disturbance, including but not limited to filling, trash, and vandalism. An.;I ,r i 1 crn_i 1 I1OA ID /9TO/1f1ID\ Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 6. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 6.1 Monitoring The mitigation areas would be monitored during and after construction. During construction, monitoring would ensure that the BMPs are observed to minimize impacts, and the on -site construction work (including earthwork and planting) would be coordinated to ensure that the site is constructed as designed. After construction is completed, an "as -built" mitigation report would be submitted to the Cities of Renton and Tukwila within 1 month of mitigation installation. Post -construction monitoring of the mitigation areas would be performed over a 5-year period by qualified biologists. Monitoring would be performed quarterly the first year and annually for subsequent years to ensure that the goals and objectives of the mitigation are being met. A combination of qualitative and quantitative monitoring activities would be used to assess the management objectives and associated performance standards described in this mitigation proposal. Activities would include conducting site visits to monitor unnatural site disturbance, taking photographs to document site development, and collecting data for the quantitative evaluation of performance standards. The results of the monitoring will be submitted to the Cities of Renton and Tukwila following each monitoring event. Appropriate contingency measures will be developed, as needed, by a qualified professional to ensure that the sites develop healthy vegetation that meets the obligations described in this mitigation plan and the associated permits. 6.1.1 Quantitative Monitoring The following bulleted items describe the methods to be used for the quantitative monitoring, monitoring schedule, and report deadlines. • The mitigation sites will be assessed by an appropriate quantitative vegetative cover field assessment methodology. The line intercept method will be used for determining percent areal cover for woody and invasive species. • Quantitative vegetation assessments will follow the same method in each consecutive monitoring year. • Quantitative vegetation assessments will be performed between June 15 and September 15 of each monitoring year. • Monitoring reports will be sent to agencies requiring monitoring reports by February 15 of the following year. • Quantitative monitoring will include photographic documentation of the sites from permanent photograph stations. 6.1.2 Qualitative Monitoring Qualitative assessment will be performed yearly to visually assess the health of plants and identify areas that may need control of non-native invasive species or other maintenance activities. Additionally, during Years 1, 2, and 3 the screening plantings (SP-1 on Sheet MP1 in Appendix E) will Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County also be qualitatively monitored to visually assess the health of the plants and identify areas that may need control of non-native invasive species or other maintenance activities. 6.2 Maintenance The proposed mitigation is intended to achieve the performance standards with minimal ongoing maintenance. Planted vegetation species should be adapted to varying site conditions in the Puget Sound lowland; however, supplemental irrigation might be needed during the first two growing seasons after installation to ensure the long-term survival of the plants. The need for irrigation would be evaluated based on the conditions observed during the establishment period. To ensure rapid establishment of the plant community, trees and shrubs would be planted closer together than would generally occur in natural mature stands. Some natural mortality is expected to occur during the monitoring period. All dead and downed woody material would be left in place to provide microhabitats for wildlife. Plants would be replaced as needed to meet performance standards. Maintenance to control nuisance species in the mitigation areas may be necessary. During the monitoring period, if it becomes evident that invasive species are impeding establishment of desirable native plants, measures would be implemented to control nuisance species. A progressively aggressive approach would be used to control nuisance species. Control measures would first include hand cutting and/or grubbing and removal; if this fails, an environmentally sensitive herbicide (Rodeoo or equivalent) may be applied. 6.3 Contingency Measures If monitoring indicates that the sites are not meeting performance standards, contingency measures would be implemented (Table 6-1). Site conditions would be evaluated to determine the cause of the problem and the most appropriate countermeasures. Information from the annual monitoring program will be used to identify any maintenance and/or corrective actions. If problems are identified in monitoring, King County biologists will determine the cause of the problem and implement proper maintenance or corrective activities. These activities will be discussed in the annual monitoring report. 6-2 Anril 2n15 I SSA-1521-(1RA (11/1TRnnR1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Table 6-1. Contingency Measures for the Mitigation Site Problem Contingency Measure Less than 80% of planted woody species survive in Year 1 Percent cover for woody species not met in Year 3 or 5 Invasive species exceed percent cover threshold King County biologists (or other qualified biologist) would assess the site to determine what conditions are preventing the plants from thriving. Appropriate measures would be taken to correct any conditions that are limiting growth. Lost plants would be replaced with appropriate native species unless appropriate native woody species are volunteering at a rate sufficient to replace them. Additional measures (such as providing additional protection) would be considered if necessary. Additional protection could include the use of an herbivore repellent (Plantskydd or equivalent). King County biologists (or other qualified biologist) would assess the sites to determine what conditions are preventing the plants from thriving. Appropriate measures would be taken to correct any conditions that are limiting growth. Implement/revise invasive species control plan. Performance standards not met at Year 5 rt Continue the monitoring regime for 1 additional year. The sites would continue to be evaluated every year until they meet the stated performance standards associated with management objectives. Other contingency measures may be implemented during this period. A...:I 9111[ I [[A ,r„ non In/OTOnno% Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County 7. REFERENCES Bax, N. J., E.O. Salo, and B.P. Snyder. 1979. Salmonid outmigration studies in Hood Canal. Final report, phase VI. FRI-UW-7921, 89 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Wash., Seattle. Blomberg, G., C. Simenstad, and P. Hickey. 1988. Changes in Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. Pages 437-454 in Proceedings. First annual meeting on Puget Sound research. Volume 2. Prepared by the Puget Sound water quality authority. Seattle, Washington. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Natural Heritage Program GIS Layer. Olympia, Washington. DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2010b. DNR Forest Practices Water Typing. Available at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/fp watertyping. aspx. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303[d] list). Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Accessed February 3, 2015. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 53033C0976F and Map Number 53033C0957F. Effective September 29, 1989; latest revision May 16, 1995. Foerster, R.E. 1972. The sockeye salmon. Bulletin 162. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 422 p. GretagMacbeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Anril 'Mc 1 55d-1571-MA lR/TT2nnR1 7_1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 04-06-025. King County. 2012. Green River Watershed. Available at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/green-river.aspx. Accessed February 27, 2012. King County. 2015. King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool. Available at: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx>. Accessed April 2015. Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office. Olympia, Washington. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. April 2015. Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Final Technical Information Report. April 2015. Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015c. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Stream Discipline Report. April 2015. Seattle, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1993. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region 9 Supplement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Renton, City of. 2015. GIS data. FEMA Floodplain Boundary. Available at: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=29887. Data Downloaded March 30, 2015. Rieman, B.E. and G.L. Chandler. 1999. Empirical evaluation of temperature effects on bull trout distribution in the Northwest. Final Report, Contract No. 12957242-01-0. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. Stenberg, K. 2007. The Black River Heron Colony: An Annotated History. Quailcroft Environmental Services, Sammamish, WA. Stober, Q.J, S.J. Walden, and D.T. Griggs. 1973. Juvenile salmonid migration through Skagit Bay, pp.35- 70. In Ecological studies of proposed Kiket Island nuclear power site. Edited by Q.J. Stober and E.O. Salo. FRI-UW-7304. 537pp. 7-2 Anril 2015 1 554-1521-OR4 (R/1T300R1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Area Study King County USDA, NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2002. Climate Information. King County, Washington. Available at: <ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/wa/53053.txt>. Water and Climate Center, Portland, Oregon. USDA, NRCS. 2010a. Web Soil Survey Online Interactive Mapper. Available at: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed December 2010. USDA, NRCS. 2010b. The PLANTS Database. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Online Interactive Mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Warner, E.J., and R.L. Fritz. 1995. The distribution and growth of Green River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) outmigrants in the Duwamish Estuary as a function of water quality and substrate. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed February 2, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2014. Williams, W.R., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island), Olympia, Washington. December 2000. Anri1 7f11S I SSA_1571_112A IPI T fW P. Appendix A Wetland Determination Data Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 02/04/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: SP-N1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland forest Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No ® Yes Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) ® 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site ma • showin • sam • ling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes Yes Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No I❑I Yes I ®I No Remarks: Data Plot Sp-N1 is located approximate y 8 feet south of the gravel trail in a swale. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Dominant Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Species? 1. Number of Dominant Species 2 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Poa pratensis 60 Y' FAC Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. Schedonorus phoenix 20 Y FAC 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is 5 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No 0 Present? 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Remarks: Bare ground and moss make up most of ground cover (no herbaceous layer) Sampling Point W3-SP2 IL i Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-4 2.5Y 4/1 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Sandy loam 4+ Quarry Spalls Fill 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ❑ No El Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Pnmary ® Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: Surface water (Al) check ❑ all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Secondary 0 Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ® High Water Table (A2) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) ® Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) 0 ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ® Yes IS No Depth (in): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 0 Water Table Present? ID Yes ® No Depth (in): Surface Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ® Yes ® No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 02/04/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W1-SP1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 2% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 42.29" Long W122 14'10.03" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? El Yes 0 Are Vegetation 0, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing samel'Ing point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? El El El Yes Yes Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No �®I Yes 0 Remarks: Sample Plot W1-SP1 is located near the northern boundary of the wetland, approximately 15 feet north of Wetland Flag W1-26. 1 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1.Populus balsamifera 50 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2.Fraxinus latifolia 10 N FACW 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 60 == Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 67 or FAC: (AIB) 1.Comus sericea 10 Y FACW Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) 10 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) (B) 1. Lysimachia nummularia 10 Y NL Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation ' (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 10 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No 0 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 = Total Cover Remarks: Vegetation is dominated by hydrophytic species. r IC arm., rnrno .,r Cnninnn c SOIL Samalina Point WI-SPI I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` 0-18 2.5Y 4/1 85 2.5Y 5/6 10 C M Clay loam 10YR 5/8 5 C M 18-20 2.5Y 6/1 85 10YR 5/8 15 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ® Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ® ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ® No 0 Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydrogen sulfide and depleted matrix indicators are present. HYDROLOGY We land Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ® Surface water (A1) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ® 0 ❑ ❑ High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 ❑ 0 ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Salt Crust (811) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 0 0 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial ❑ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ® Yes ❑ No Depth (in): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 0 Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: The sample plot was inundated during the site investigation. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 02/04/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W1-SP2 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Hillslope Slope (%) 4% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 42.50" Long W122 14' 09.96" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland forest Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? El Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® Yes 0 Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sameling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? CI Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No 1❑1 Yes 0 Remarks: Data Plot W1 SP-2 located approximately 15 feet north of Wetland Flag W1-26. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of Dlants. r Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant :pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Populus balsam era 50 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 50 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 25 or FAC: (NB) 1.Sambucus racemosa 50 Y FACU Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2.Rubus spectabilis 5 I'J FAC 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) 55 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Lysimachia nummularia 75 Y NL Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. Polystichum munitum 50 Y FACU 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is 5 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No 1.Rubus armeniacus Trace N FACU 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Trace = Total Cover Remarks: Vegetation is dominated by upland species. SOIL SamDlina Point Wl-SP2 I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-20 2.5Y 3/2 100 Gravelly clay loam Disturbed with small scattered inclusions 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (Al) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 0 No (81 Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils appear to be historically disturbed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pnmary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ❑ High Water Table (A2) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No El Water Table Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology was present in sample plot during site investigation. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 12/21/10 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W2A-SP1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28" 38.43" Long W122 14' 44.53" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? El Yes ❑ No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® Yes ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sameling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 181 Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No IElI Yes Q❑ No Remarks: W2A-SP1 is located at the east end of the study area. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of Dlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet Cover 1.Populus balsamifera 70 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 3 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2.Fraxinus latfolia 50 Y FAC 3. Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across At Strata: (B) 4. 120 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 75 or FAC: (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 1.Rubus spectabilis 80 Y FAC Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2.Symphoricarpos alba 40 Y FACU 3.Rosa pisocarpa 10 N FAC x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 130 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. . Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No 0 Present? 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Vegetation is dominated by hydrophytic species. SOIL Samalina Point W2A-SP1 I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-9 10 YR 3/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 c m Silty loam 9-20 10 YR 6/1 70 10YR 5/6 30 c m Silty clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils meet the depleted matrix indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Primary Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ® ® High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) 0 ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Salt Crust (B11) 0 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 0 Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): 9 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Recent rain US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 12/21/10 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W2A-SP2 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 1% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 38.31" Long W122 14' 03.14" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? In Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® Yes 0 Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site ma showin samplin • • oint locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? p 0 El Yes Yes Yes g 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? I 0 I Yes n No No No Remarks: Data Plot W2A SP-2 located approximately 8 feet south of Wetland Flag W2A-3. There have been recent rain events. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1.Populus balsamifera 75 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: r (A) 2.Fraxinus latifolia 15 N FACW 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 66 or FAC: (a6) 1.Symphoricarpos alba 40 Y FACU Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2.Rubus spectabilis 15 Y FAC 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No 0 Present? 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 = Total Cover Remarks: Only snowberry is not hydrophytic. I IQ d r..... /`.........i c....:..ec.n SOIL SamDlina Point W2A-SP2 I Profile Descrption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-9 10YR 3/2 100 Silty loam 9-16 10YR 4/3 100 Silty Gay loam 16-20 10YR 4/3 60 5YR 4/4 40 c M Silty clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (.A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 0 No Egl Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils lack hydric indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Primary ❑ ❑ ❑ Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: Surface water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) check 0 ❑ ❑ all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Secondary 0 0 ❑ Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (85) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ ❑ Surface Sot Cracks (66) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes 0 No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 0 Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): 10 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): 9 Describe Recorded Data (st eam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology was present during site investigation. Recently rained. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 01/05/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W3-SP1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 42.88" Long W122 14' 22.03" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No ® Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) ® Yes ❑ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sanwAng point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No I®I Yes Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of Dlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Dominant Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet Cover Species? 1. Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 1 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No 0 Present? 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Sample plot is completely dominated by reed canarygrass. SOIL Sampling Point W3-SP1 Profile Descrption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicato s.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LOcl 0-2 Duff/roots 2-8 5Y 4/1 Clay loam 8-14 5Y 4/1 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 c m Sandy clay loam w/ gravel 14-18 5Y 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 c m Sandy clay loam w/ gravel and cobbles Disturbed -Multiple textures and some inclusions. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (Al) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) 0 ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (explain in remarks) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes IS) No ❑ Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils appear to be historically disturbed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ® High Water Table (A2) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ® Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) _ 0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth (in): Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) 0 Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Recent rain. Hydrology has been observed in this area during dry season in previous site visits. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 01/05/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W3-SP2 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 3% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 42.59" Long W122 14' 23.11" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland forest Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® Yes 0 Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showirlsg ampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 0 Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No I❑I Yes M No Remarks: Data Plot W3 SP-2 located approximately 20 feet southwest of Wetland Flag W3-9. There have been recent rain events. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Cover 1. Fraxinus lattfolia 90 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 1 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total °A, Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is 5 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No 0 Present? 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Remarks: Bare ground and moss make up most of ground cover (no herbaceous layer) SOIL Sampling Point W3-SP2 i Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` 0-6 5Y 4/1 95 2.5Y 5/6 5 C M Clay loam 6-13 2.5Y 3/3 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy loam w/ gravel 13-18 2.5Y 3/2 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy loam w/ gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 0 No El Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) High Water Table (A2) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) _❑ ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) 0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No El Water Table Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): 13 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): 13 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 01/05/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W4-SP1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 41.87" Long W122 14' 23.38" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PFO Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® Yes 0 Are Vegetation 0, Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling . oint locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 0 Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? I 0 I Yes ji No No No Remarks: Sample Plot W4-SP1 is located near the southem boundary of the wetland, in the vicinity of Wetland Flags W4-4 and W4-5. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant S_pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1.Fraxinus latifolia 70 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species 3 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2.Populus balsamifera 25 Y FAC 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (NB) ) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is S. 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size 15 = Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No 0 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 = Total Cover Remarks: Forested area dominated by Oregon ash. US Army Cnme of Fnninoorc Sampling Point W4-SP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` 0-10 5Y 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Clay loam 10-18 5Y 4/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 40 C M Silty clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ ❑ Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 0 Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 0 2cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ElNo 0 Depth (inches): Remarks: Depleted matrix indicators present. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ® High Water Table (A2) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) ® ❑ Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) ❑ 0 Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No 0 Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) CO Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Recent rain US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, V'aileys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 01/05/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W4-SP2 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 2% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 42.30" Long W122 14' 24.06" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland forest Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? El Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® Yes 0 Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sameling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No I Yes 0 Remarks: Data Plot W4 SP-2 located southeast of Wetland Flag W4-1. There have been recent rain events. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant l pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Populus balsamifera 85 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 33 or FAC: (A/B) 1.Symphorocarpos alba 15 Y FACU Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 5 N FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is 5 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No Present? 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Y FACU 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 = Total Cover Remarks: Bare ground makes up much of ground cover (minimal herbaceous layer) SOIL SamDlinq Point W4-SP2 I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicato s.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-10 5Y 3/1 30 Clay loam w/gravel 2.5Y 70 Silt clay w/gravel 10-20 2.5Y 4/2 80 Clay loam w/ gravel Distrubed Variable 20 Variety of inclusions 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 0 0 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 0 No Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils appear to be historically disturbed Wetland Primary ❑ ❑ Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: Surface water (Al) High Water Table (A2) check 0 0 all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Secondary 0 0 Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ ❑ ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 ❑ 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ ❑ 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Water Table Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): 13 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): 13 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology present. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 01/05/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W5-SP1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 31.12 Long W122 14' 49.48" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? ® ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No ®I Yes I ❑I No Remarks: Sample Plot W5-SP1 is located centrally in the southern portion of the wetland, in the vicinity of Wetland Flags W5-14 and W5-15. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of !ants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet Cover 1.Alnus rubra (rooted outside of wetland) 35 N FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 1.Salix lucida 2 N FACW Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 2 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 ,/ FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. Typha angustifolia 60 Y OBL 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 140 == Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes 0 No 0 Present? 1. 2. = Total Cover Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Dominated by reed canarygrass and cattails. US Arm Corns of Enninears SOIL Sampling Point W5-SP1 i Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-18 2.5Y 4/1 70 7.5YR 5/8 30 C M Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ❑ Histosol (Al) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ® No 0 Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils meet the depleted matrix indicators criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ID High Water Table (A2) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) :t Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth (in): Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (st eam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Recent rain. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 01/05/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W5-SP2 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 1% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 30.96" Long W122 14' 49.48" Datum NAD 83 Sot Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland forest Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? El Yes ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No l Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, El, or Hydrology Elnaturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 0 Yes Yes Yes 181 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? I 0 I Yes 0 No No No Remarks: Data Plot W5 SP-2 located between the trail and the wetland in the vicinity of Wetland Flags W5-14 and W5-15. There have been recent rain events. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Alnus rubra 70 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3 Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m 70 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 50 or FAC: (NB) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3 x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) _= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators • 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No Present? 1.Rubus armeniacus 100 Y FACU 2• % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 100 = Total Cover Remarks: Dominated by Himalayan blackberry. SOIL SamDlina Point W5-SP2 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-6 5Y 3/1 30 Loam Primarily quarry spalls. Soil is found between the quarry spalls. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix H dric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 0 No Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils have been disturbed historically. Located near trail and filled with quarry spalls. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pnmary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ❑ Surface water (Al) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ❑ High Water Table (A2) 0 Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B11) 0 Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Water Table Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology present. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 02/04/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W6-SP1 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 32.96" Long W122 14' 44.77" Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? 0 Yes 0 Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Sot, ❑, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sameyng point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Ell 121 Yes Yes Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No I®1 Yes I ❑I No Remarks: Sample Plot W6-SP1 is located centrally in the wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant §pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 1 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (A/B) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. Poa sp. 10 N NL 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is 5 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations* (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 90 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? 1.Rubus armeniacus Trace N FACU 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Trace = Total Cover Remarks: Dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. SOIL Sampling Point W6-SP1 i Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz 0-4 2.5Y 3/1 95 2.5Y 3/3 5 C M Clay loam 4-18 2.5Y 4/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M Fine sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes El No 0 Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soils present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Primary ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ D Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: Surface water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) check 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Secondary 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ ❑ ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ ❑ ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 0 0 FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Water Table Present? ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): 5 Wetland Hydrology Present/ YesNo 0 Saturation Present?® (includes capillary fringe) ® Yes 0 No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soils saturated to surface. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 02/04/11 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: W6-SP2 Investigator: C Hoffman, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 1% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A Lat N47 28' 32.85 Long W122 14' 44.53 Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland herbaceous Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? El ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sameling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? I 0 I Yes Q No No No Remarks: Data Plot W6 SP-2 located just south-southeast of the wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of slants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 50 or FAC: (AIB) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) _= Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Agrostis capillaris 80 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. Plantago lanceolata Trace N FAC 3. Schedonorus phoenix Trace N FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is 5 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 80 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes 0 No Present? 1.Rubus armeniacus 10 Y FACU 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 10 = Total Cover Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point W6-SP2 i Profile Descrption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-9 10YR 3/1 70 10YR 3/4 30 C M Sandy loam Disturbed with carbon 9+ Cobble Fill 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ❑ Histosol (Al) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 0 0 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes 0 No 121 Depth (inches): Remarks: I HYDROLOGY Wetland Primary ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: Surface water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (82) check ❑ 0 0 0 0 all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (89) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Secondary 0 0 0 0 ❑ Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 FAC-Neutral Test (05) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes ® No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No El Water Table Present? 0 Yes ® No Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ❑ Yes ® No Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 03/01/12 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: WBR-SP1 Investigator: C Worsley, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 0% Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification PEM Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No ® Yes Yes 0 No No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes 77- 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? ® Yes No No No Remarks: The sample plot is located approximate y 15 feet south southeast from Wetland Flag WBR-7, near the toe of the slope. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of Dlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1.Alnus rubra 90 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2.Salix lasiandra 5 N FACW 3. Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) 95 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 100 or FAC: (NB) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1m ) = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. Scirpus microcarpus 10 N OBL 3. Athyrium filix-femina 5 N FACW 4. Ranunculus repens 2 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5 Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 90 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No 0 Present? 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = Total Cover Remarks: Dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-5 2.5Y 3/1 100 - - - - Silt loam With organics 5-10 10Y 4/1 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Clay loam 10-18 10Y 4/1 20 7.5YR 4/6 80 C M Loamy sand 'Type: Hydric C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains `Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' Histosol (Al) —0— Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ —D Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) —7 Black Histic (A3) —f21— Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) -D Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) T— Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must 1 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) —171- Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ® No 0 Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soils present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pnmary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): in Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) D Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) -Q —Q High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) 0 —17 —CrAquatic in- Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) —Q in. Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) —Q Shallow Aquitard (D3) 0 —Q -17 Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ —In— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) —Q FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) —0 Frost -Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? 0 Yes IMII No Depth (in): Water Table Present? ® Yes u No Depth (in): 9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) ® Yeslil No Depth (in): Surface Describe Recorded Data (st eam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soils saturated to surface. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Lake to Sound Trail (Two Rivers) Sampling Date: 03/01/12 Applicant/Owner: King County Sampling Point: WBR-SP2 Investigator: C Worsley, M Maynard City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S13, T23N, RO4E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) 1% Local relief (concave, convex, none) convex Subregion (LRR) A Lat Long Datum NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name N/A NWI classification Upland herbaceous Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? Are Vegetation 0, Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0, Soil, 0, or Hydrology 0 naturally problematic? No ® Yes _ No (If no, explain in remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Yes No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sameling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? u Yes Yes Yes u No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No No 0 Remarks: Data Plot WBR SP-2 is located approximately 25 feet north northeast from Wetland Flag WBR-7. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of Dlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 10m ) Absolute % Cover Dominant pecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 5m ) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant that are OBL, FACW, Species 50 or FAC: (NB) 1. Prevalence OBL species Index Worksheet Total % Cover of Multiply by 2. 3. x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 m ) = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) I (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 70 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is <_ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Welland Non -Vascular Plants * 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 70 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes 0 No El Present? 1.Rubus armeniacus 70 Y FACU 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 70 = Total Cover Remarks: Moss covers 90% of ground surface. I IC 4rm,. /`Ames of Fnninunrc SOIL Sampling Point W6-SP2 I 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Remarks Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-8 2.5Y 3/2 100 Silt loam 8-18 2.5Y 4/1 65 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Sandy loam 5YR 4/6 5 C M 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains `Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' -Er- Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) —0 2cm Muck (A10) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) Tr Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) -Er- Other (explain in remarks) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) t— Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _n— 0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) 17 Thick Dark Surface (Al2) IT Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must 0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) —17- Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic 1T Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric soil present? Yes ® No 0 Depth (inches): Remarks: The entire soil profile appears to be historically disturbed (mixed in inclusions and carbon). HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): —Q Surface water (A1) —IT Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) —Q Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) 0 High Water Table (A2) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) 0 —Q Saturation (A3) -17- Salt Crust (B11) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) —Q Sediment Deposits (B2) - —0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) —Q Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) —❑— Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 —❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) —Q Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) ' D —D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) m Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Frost -Heave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes EA No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Water Table Present? ❑ Yes v No Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) 0 Yes :� No Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version Appendix B Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number 1/2 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetland 1/2 Date of site visit: 01/17/11 Rated by: M Maynard Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size >50 acres SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I__ II X III IV Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category III = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 22 16 18 56 II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional X Riverine Lake -fringe Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present I I II Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland Check List for Wetlands that ateerd l •itlonal 'rot+e+ction fin addition to the protection rer nmeln ed or it ategory) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number 1/2 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with ,multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? '1O — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. It'd is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and ]I estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). O - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes Wetland name or number 1/2 D Depressions' and Fiat Wettandi Vv ATER QI'AL ITY F1'\CI IONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points (only t score per box) (see p.38i D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing Figure 2 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent. ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure 4 ___ � 11 � Total for D 1 Add the loin s in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Multiplier 2 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging X Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 ® TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 1 22 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. (see p.46) D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) points = 0 2 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 3 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 3 ___ Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above r 8 j Wetland name or number 1/2 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate. flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. X Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other 2 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1' 16 Comments: Wetland name or number 1/2 WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only I score per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure _ R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees. shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerialphoto or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Add the points in the boxes above' I R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas. golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment. toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 _ I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.54) R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • if the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 • If the ratio is 5- <10 points = 4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Add the points in the boxes above _ _ _ r �' R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Multiplier Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 1/2 +�.cit&s 4S4�'r WA I I- R Q1 AI,ITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. (only I score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure _ L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understoty in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualif}, as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained. ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on p. 11 I HYDROLOGIC FI INC T1ONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. (see p 62) L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above I L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Multiplier Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 11 I Comments: Wetland name or number 1/2 S Slope Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCI IONS — Indicators thatwetland functions to improve water quality, Points ionky) score per box) (see p.6.1) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a I% slope has a 1 ft. vertical drop in elevationfor every 100J1. horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure _ Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above r- - - S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? - (seep. 67) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.68) S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > I/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense. uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area. points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed. mowed, tilled. or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the boxes above r_ _ _ 1 S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? .— (see p. 70) Multiplier p Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. II Comments: Wetland name or number 1/2 a. These questions. apply to wetlands of all MGM classes, 11;kBI I .\ 1 Ft'NCI IONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. Points look"Ofo per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): — Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed ] Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) %f the unit has a forested class check if X The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map 4 structures or more points = 4 2 structures points = 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): The water regime has to descriptions of hydroperiods). more types present points = 3 more types present points = 2 present points = 1 present points = 0 Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for X Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or X Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types Saturated only 1 type X Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): ft' (different patches of the same reed canarygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 — 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in H1.1), or high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water. the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure O".. 2 None 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate - 2 points I ` .1 ,► ,J [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least for at least 33 ft. (10m) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 3 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number you put into the next column. X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter X Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above' 10 Wetland name or number 1/2 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only I score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water _ 4 > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 X 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) 0 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide. has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number 1/2 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete 1 descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http:.. wdfw.wa.gov hab.phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore. Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt. andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 3 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2. I, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 8 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 I 10 i • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 1 _ 18 j Comments: Wetland name or number 1/2 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type — ('heck off any criteria that apptY to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category 1 NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating 1/II less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat 1 Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened. Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs (seep. 87) Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I IO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number 1/2 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. I Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Cat. 1 Cat. II Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling. cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Cat. II Cat. III Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre. or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 3 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetland 3 Date of site visit: 01/05/11 Rated by: M Maynard Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size 0.18 acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III IV X Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category III = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 14 5 10 I 29 i II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional X Riverine Lake -fringe Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present I X IV Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomotphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number 3 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with ,multiple FIG!11 classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? 1\;0 — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO — go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Mill (lasses within the wetland unit being rated 11G11 Class to 1 se in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes Wetland name or number 3 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands ; ` A"fl:R QLAIITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points (only t score per box) (see p. PO D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: - • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing Figure 2 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = I • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure _ 0 _ I_ _ 7 Total for D l Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Multiplier 2 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qual16, as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland X A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads. or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2' NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Qualit Functions Multi ly the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1' 14 I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -- Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. (see p.46) D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 2 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above I _ 5 _1; Wetland name or number 3 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate. flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 ( 5 Comments: Wetland name or number 3 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal I 'cringe Wctjat ds , =_ ''' �n.:` :: W ATFR ALI I Y FUNCTw IONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve ater quality. Points tonly t wort:.O per box 1 R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland. points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above I R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 :ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment. toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.54i R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 • If the ratiois5-<10 points=4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above ___ r R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Multiplier Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges. farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 11 Comments: Wetland name or number 3 L Lake -fringe Wetlands N :A I I-:R Q(!AL1 l Y Fl IN(' I IONS Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. Points (onI. I score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (l0m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on p. 11 I HYDROLOGIC FI''NCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. (seep 62) L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above I L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Multiplier Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1' I Comments: Wetland name or number 3 S Slope Wetlands Points WA I ER QUALI I Y F1 NCI IONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. 1m11\ i score S Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? per box l lsee p.6 {1 S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1%slope has a 1 f. vertical drop in elevationfor every IOOft. horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. a points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense. woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1 /4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation olygons Figure Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above r 1 S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? I, .MINI___ _ (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/Sin), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut. rigid vegetation > 1/4 area.. points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid oints = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the boxes above i 1 S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding p. problems Other Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 �1 Comments: Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. IIAR17 Al F t''N(- P importantpc (IONS Indicators that wetland functions to rovide habitat. Points ���pc I "ore nk t box H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): — Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed _ 1 X Emergent plants X Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if. The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map 4 structures or more points = 4 2 structures points = 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): The water regime has to descriptions of hydroperiods). more types present points = 3 more types present points = 2 present points = 1 present points = 0 Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or 1 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types X Saturated only 1 type Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in. or adjacent to, the wetland Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): ft' (different patches of the same reed canarygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 — 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in H1.1), or high, medium. low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure '--) !�' "`°" CO) _ 2 None .. 0 points Low - 1 point Moderate — 2 points i(.1 .,./N • [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number you put into the next column. Large. downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above) 5 Wetland name or number 3 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only t score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure 2 Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". l 00m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) points = 5 I OOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 I OOm (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 X No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer = 1 points Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above = 1 points Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) 0 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie. that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Danis in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number 3 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete 0 descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http: wdfw. wa.gov hah%phslist. htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay. decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _ _ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical. biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity. recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice. or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 3 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile. and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating. but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 ___ 1 5 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 I 5 i • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 1 10 Comments: Wetland name or number 3 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type -- Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Cat. I Cat. 11 Dual Rating I/H less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat I Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 10$1 (seep. 87) Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. 7f you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first :32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are Tess than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is Tess than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I NIO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number 3 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. I Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category 1 NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Cat. I Cat. II Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks. gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently. rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category 11 SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Cat. II Cat. III Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger. or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category 11 NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category II1 Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 4 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _ Wetland 4 Rated by: M Maynard SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N Date of site visit: 01/05/11 Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I Category I = Category II = Category III = Category IV = Score > 70 Score 51 - 69 Score 30 — 50 Score < 30 .04 acre II III IV X Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions I 25 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 9 6 10 II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional X Riverine Lake -fringe Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present IV Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydiugeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number 4 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple IIG!vl classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and H estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO — go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. i0 — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 S'ES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. II(, 1(7usses within the wetland unit hying rated HG:11 ( lase• to ('se in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes Wetland name or number 4 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands , , , .t , ,, f Vki ATF R QUALITY F I NCI IONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points (only I sLore per box) 'see p.38) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (I f ditch is not permanentlyflowing treat unit as "intermittentlyflowing") Provide photo or drawing Figure _ 3 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure _ 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure 2 I ,10 I Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Multiplier I Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming fi-om several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2; then add score to table on p. 11 10 HYDROLOGIC Ft NCTIONS - Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. (see p.46) D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittentlyflowing") • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 4 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above EMIR MEM MIN 1. Wetland name or number 4 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 I 9 Comments: Wetland name or number 4 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal FringeWetlands : ,,:`., WA"I ER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points Iunlr t score per box R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above ( I R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft, Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 ♦ TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2; then add score to table on p. I r HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.54) R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 • If the ratio is 5- <10 points = 4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation typesi. Figure _ _ "'I Add the points in the boxes above R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? OM (see p.57) Multiplier Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland name or number 4 L Lake -fringe Wetlands V \ 11-:R OF Al I I Y F1.1NCTIONS Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. Points (oil% ( score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure _ L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above _ am _ I _1 L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained. ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on p. 1' HYDROI.(GI(' Ft'N('TIONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. /see p.62) L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (l Om) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (l0m) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure _ Record the points in the boxes above I L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Multiplier Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other , YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 4 S Slope Wetlands W"ATLR QtALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points (on)>) score per box) (see p 64) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1 % slope has a I ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above ___ r S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1' I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.68) S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points _ r__� (see p. 70) Multiplier p Add the points in the boxes above S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 ♦ TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 4 These questions apply to wetlands QfalIRON classes. , r= w „ ;. 11.11411;11 F'1 ANC IIONS -- Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. Points` :. lonl� i sroru pf r box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): — Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed 0 Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map 4 structures or more points = 4 2 structures points = 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): The water regime has to descriptions of hydroperiods). more types present points = 3 more types present points = 2 present points = 1 present points = 0 Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or 1 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types X Saturated only 1 type Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in. or adjacent to, the wetland Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): ft2 (different patches of the same reed canarygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 0 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 — 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species FI 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in H1.1), or high. medium. low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure �' 0 4r, None .. 0 points Low -1 point Moderate — 2 points r [riparian braided channels] High - 3 points H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least for at least 33 ft. (10m) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 0 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number you put into the next column. Large, downed. woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging 3.3 ft. (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above' 1 Wetland name or number 4 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? tonly I score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure 2 Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 X No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer = 1 points Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above = 1 points Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) 0 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide. has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries. other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = I point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number 4 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete 0 descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report htto:.: wdfw.wa.gov hab;phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be Tess that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _ _ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical. biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess. void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock. ice. or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft). composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 3 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile. BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 5 Inn 11 -I TOTAL for H I from page 8 i 1 • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 1 6 Comments: Wetland name or number 4 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERIST➢CS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type ('heck off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve. Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category lI The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/I1 less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina sp ,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dualprating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however. exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat I Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 BOg (seep. 87) Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen. Englemann's spruce. or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I 1140 = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number 4 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. 1 Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Cat. I Cat. II Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle. or. less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category 11 SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Cat. II Cat. III Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 5 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW defmitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetland 5 Date of site visit: 01/05/11 Rated by: M Maynard Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size 0.30 acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III X IV Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category III = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 22 16 11 49 i II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special C' h a racte ristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional X Riverine Lake -fringe Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present ' X I 111 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydmgeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that finnction in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number 5 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple IIGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. O — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than I foot deep). NO — go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 °YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS I-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. IIG 11 (7a.sse.s within the wetland unit being rated 116;t f Class to 1 .se in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes Wetland name or number 5 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands WA I FR QUALITY FUNCTIONS — indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points (only score per box) (see p.38) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittentlyflowing") Provide photo or drawing Figure 2 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total areaof wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total areaof wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure _ 4 ___ I 11 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Multiplier 2 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields. roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas. golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. I' 22 HYDROLOGIC FI. NCTIONS — Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. (see p.46) D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 2 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 3 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 _ 8 __j Wetland name or number 5 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. X Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other 2 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 ( 16 Comments: Wetland name or number 5 R Riverine and FiesitwaterTWOO tinge WeIlan Is°..� .. � :� V4.ATF:R Ql'ALIT Y FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points ionN t score per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above' 1 (see p. 53) Multiplier R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads. or clear-cut logging Residential. urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment. toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R1 by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 • HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.5.) R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wet/and perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 • If the ratio is 5- <10 points = 4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • 1f the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above ,I, _' R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Multiplier Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 5 L Lake -fringe Wetlands W A 11 R QVAI.I l Y Ft N(' IlONS Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. Points (onh I .core per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (l0m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure _ L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L 1 by L2; then add score to table on p. 1' HYDROLOGIC Ft'NCI IONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. (see p.621 L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (l Om) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (l Om) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Multiplier Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 5 S Slope Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points took 1 score per box) (see p.6.1) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 fi vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure — Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above r ___ j S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? _ — .... (see p. 67) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming firom several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging. or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from SI by S2; then add score to table on p. I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.68) S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut. rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the boxes above _ r __J S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Multiplier Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland name or number 5 These questions apply to wetlands of all MGM classes. .. . IIAIII I A I FI'N(' I IONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. P,..oints (only i ,core per box H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): - Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure— Check the types 1/4 acre or more Aquatic Bed of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. plants (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) where trees have > 30% cover) forested class check if: class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover 20% within the forested polygon. of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map structures or more points = 4 structures points = 1 0 X Emergent Scrub/shrub Forested (areas If the unit has a The forested cover) that each Add the number 4 2 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 only 1 type present points = 0 flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland flowing stream in, or adjacent to. the wetland wetland = 2 points tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types cover more than Permanently _ 2 X Seasonally X Occasionally X Saturated Permanently Seasonally Lake -fringe Freshwater 11 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): ft2 (different patches of the same reed canarygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 - 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in H1.1), or high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure (CD CD 1 None .= 0 points Low - 1 point Moderate - 2 points idria ,/ w RR \ ...----"jr [riparian braided channels] High - 3 points H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least for at least 33 ft. (l Om) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 2 Check the habitat you put into the X Large, downed, features that are present in the wetland. The number next column. woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, banks of fine material that might be used by beaver slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present grey/brown) acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page X Standing snags Undercut 3.3 ft. (1 m) Stable steep (> 30 degree not yet turned At least 1/4 are permanently Invasive plants NOTE: The H 1 TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above I 6 I Wetland name or number 5 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? ionly I score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water 2 > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 X No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) 0 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide. has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number 5 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete 0 descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http: wdfiv.wa.govhab;phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (l 00m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _ _ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional Life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in JVDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end. and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = l point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 3 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 5 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 I 6 1 • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 1 11 j Comments: Wetland name or number 5 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type — ('heck off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SCl Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational. Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category 11 The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, has Cat. 1 Cat. II Dual Rating I/II grazing, and Tess than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/1I). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category 11 while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water. or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat 1 Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 GOES (see p. 87) Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I i10 = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number 5 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. 1 Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics scs Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Cat. 1 Cat. 11 Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks. gravel banks. shingle, or, less frequently. rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at Least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching. filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category 1 NO = Category II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Cat. II Cat. I11 Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category I1 NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 6 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetland 6 Rated by: M Maynard Date of site visit: 01/05/11 Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size 0.83 acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III X IV Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category III = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 16 17 8 I 41 II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional X Riverine Lake -fringe Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present III Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomotphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number 6 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple FI(jM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). ivU — go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. • — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 14 ES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. 116t1 ('lasses within the wetland unit being rated HG 11('lass to 1 'se in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes Wetland name or number 6 D Depressional and Flat Wetlands W'.ATER Q1 JALITY FIJNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points look, I score per box) (see p.38) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanentlyflowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Provide photo or drawing Figure _ 3 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure _ 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure _ 0 __ � _ 8 � Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? _ (see p. 44) Multiplier 2 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas. residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging X Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2; then add score to table on p. 1' 16 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. (see p.46t D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 4 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 3 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above r_ 7 _ Wetland name or number 6 ---- D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. l I 7 I Comments: Wetland name or number 6 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal PringeNetialidi WATT:R QUALI'I Y FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points Wok,score per box l R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure r� (see p. 53) Multiplier Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R1 by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 I I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.54) R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 • If the ratio is 5- <10 points = 4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above ___ r _ J ��1 (see p.57) Multiplier R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 11 Comments: Wetland name or number 6 L Lake -fringe Wetlands - . 1k \ I I.R Ql':XI.I I Y Ft INC I IONS Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. Points (only I score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Add the points in the boxes above' pm mni aim L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained. ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2; then add score to table on p. 11 HYDROLOGIC Fl N(" CIONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. (see p.621 L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above' (seep. 64) Multiplier L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 11 Comments: Wetland name or number 6 S Slope Wetlands . w A TER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Points. (onlc) score per box) (see p.641 S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 fi vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is I% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense. uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1 /4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure— Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above r - - _ S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 67) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Si by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 ( I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.68) S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense. uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area. points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the points in the boxes above _ r S 4 Does the wetland have the importunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Multiplier P Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 ♦ TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 6 These question apply to wetlands of all HOW classes. . , ' ,, ii‘iiii ‘i ft NU I IONS Indicator that wetland functions to pro v ide important habitat. (oni0,1 pet box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): — Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure Check the types 1/4 acre or more Aquatic Bed of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. plants (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) where trees have > 30% cover) forested class check if: class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover 20% within the forested polygon. of vegetation types that qualib) Ifyou have: Map structures or more points = 4 structures points = 1 _ i X Emergent X Scrub/shrub Forested (areas If the unit has a The forested cover) that each Add the number 4 2 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 only 1 type present points = 0 flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to. the wetland flowing stream in. or adjacent to, the wetland wetland = 2 points tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types cover more than Permanently X Seasonally Occasionally X Saturated Permanently Seasonally Lake -fringe Freshwater 11 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): ft2 (different patches of the same reed canatygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 0 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 — 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species 11 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in H1.1), or high, medium. low. or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water. the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure „ - , :•:•:.,,,:.:. ,.. . CED •:;:::'::::.:,- .. None .- 0 points Low -- 1 point Moderate — 2 points it0P91" . • , ...4...;• ,,,:' 1..4:.:•.1.,... r „..-----)r Diparian braided channels] High = 3 points H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least for at least 33 ft. (10m) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 0 Check the habitat you put into the Large, downed, features that are present in the wetland. The number next column. woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, banks of fine material that might be used by beaver slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present grey/brown) acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page Standing snags Undercut 3.3 ft. (1m) Stable steep (> 30 degree not yet turned At least 1/4 are permanently Invasive plants NOTE: The H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above I 3 I Wetland name or number 6 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only b score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure 2 Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping. no daily human use) points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 X No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer = 1 points Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above = 1 points Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) 0 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs. forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest. and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number 6 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete 0 descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http:. wdJiv. wa.gov hab phslist. htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). _Riparian: Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore. and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock. ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 3 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating. but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile. BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 5 J TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 i 3 1 • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. I 1 — 8 — j Comments: Wetland name or number 6 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type — Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category 1 NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels. depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat I Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened. Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 BOaS (seep. 87) Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I !1O = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number 6 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. I Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Cat. I Cat. II Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently. rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub. forest. or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category 1 NO = Category II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Cat. II Cat. III Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category I1I • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 7 WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetland 7 Date of site visit: 03/08/12 Rated by: M Maynard Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size 0.88 acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II III X IV Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category III = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 16 4 17 37 1 II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional Riverine Lake -fringe Slope X Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present III Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomotphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number 7 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated. you probably have a unit with ,multiple I1GM classes. In this case. identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply. and go to Question 8. l . Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats if your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO — go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. 1\0 — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. — go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. Na — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes IP Al • Wetland name or number 7 ,'w,.,�a ''" ,da' m' ear ` a� is§ ti s 34" , • ::` i I.Y �.4. t,.�h'..G$ WATER QUALI I Y FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. x r� ,z- ,.R.._..A. (only l scoro {per box) (see p.3ht D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out ofthe wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing Figure D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above ___ D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coning from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging X Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 1 (see p.461 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. I HYDROLOGIC 1-1'NC"IIONS Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (1f ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') ' • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap waterpoints = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above __ _ 1 Wetland name or number 7 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood &ate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 11 Comments: Wetland name or number 7 ". riy S - a., i4 A . ' ,d , "3` tg<. 'i�+ �tw �K �r�, a '�'�'/,k. WA E I R Q( AIJ I Y FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (oni� i woo:. per boxl R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure _ R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Add the points in the boxes above R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. (see p.5-11 R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 - 20 points = 6 • If the ratio is 5- <10 points = 4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above !• R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Multiplier Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number 7 • 9P a .r3 X3 p +, .?_' .. ,.a i . t`�, ''%.. H" s...,✓ i ^`G'ib . 5? 4 r �.. i`y<,iy ^+9.� ��a '4r'M'.?k.4 iA" WAll .R Ql IA LI I FUNC IIONS — Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality. i (only I scor! per Fur.) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Y��...1 Add the points in the boxes above L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants corning from several sources, but any single source would quay as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on p. 1 I lY()ROI OGIC Fi 1NC 1ION S Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. (vet p.62) L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the Lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure Record the points in the boxes above I L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Multiplier Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland name or number 7 43 ,.. pr • �.^'[. V%A II R QI'AI,I1Y FUN("IIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. ', (onl) I score per box) (we p.6-1) S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? S I.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 fi vertical drop in elevation for every 100ft horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 2 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points 0 S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Figure 6 C8.""1_ (see p. 67) Multiplier 2 Total for S l Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland X Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Si by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 16 HYDROLOGIC Ft.'NCTIONS -- Indicators that wetand functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. tsee p.68) S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > I/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Multiplier 2 Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. X Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 O TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. Comments: Wetland name or number 7 I IARI FA I Fl INC "I IONS -- Indicators that IAetland functions to provide important habitat. (oni‘ 1 score per hM) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): — Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure Check the types 1/4 acre or more Aquatic Bed of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. plants (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) where trees have > 30% cover) forested class check if. class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover 20% within the forested polygon. of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map structures or more points = 4 structures points = 1 _ 2 X Emergent Scrub/shrub X Forested (areas If the unit has a X The forested cover) that each Add the number 4 2 H 1.2 Hvdroperiods (see p.73): of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points = 2 flooded or inundated 2 types present points = 1 only 1 type present points = 0 flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandp flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland wetland = 2 points tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types cover more than Permanently 1 Seasonally X Occasionally X Saturated Permanently Seasonally Lake -fringe Freshwater H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): ft2 (different patches of the same reed canarygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. if you counted: > 19 species 5 — 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in H 1.1), or high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure §..., None .. 0 points Low —1 point Moderate — 2 points [riparian braided channels] Huth = 3 noints H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least for at least 33 ft. (10m) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 0 Check the habitat, you put into the Large, downed, features that are present in the wetland. The number next column. woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, banks of fine material that might be used by beaver slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present grey/brown) acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page Standing snags Undercut 3.3 ft. (1 m) Stable steep (> 30 degree not yet turned At least 1/4 are permanently Invasive plants NOTE: The H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above' 5 Wetland name or number 7 H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only t score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water _ 4 > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 X No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) 2 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number 7 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete 1 descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http:, wdfiv. wa.gov,. hab, phslist. htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 _ 12 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 5 `; • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. I! 17 Comments: Wetland name or number 7 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type — Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. 1 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category 1 NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat I Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I F40 = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number 7 SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. I Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category 1 NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91) Cat. I Cat. II Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category 1 NO = Category 11 SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Cat. II Cat. III Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number BR WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 — Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetland BR Rated by: M Maynard Date of site visit: 03/01/12 Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 04/06 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No X _ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size —1.9 acres SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I II X III IV Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category III = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I 24 12 18 54 II Does not apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Depressional X Riverine Lake -fringe Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present II Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection (in addition to theprotection recommended for its category) YES NO SPI . Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification atoms wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the Questions needed to answer how well the wetland Wetland name or number BR Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington IFthe hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated. you probably have a unit with ultiple IIGM classes. In this case. identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply. and go to Question 8. ,1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? tc,t) — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and 11 estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? t•iO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO — go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. #v0 — go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 f' ES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGAI Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes Wetland name or number BR (only 1 Lore per twxl tree p.38) A A I L;R Qt A1,11Y FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) points = 1 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing Figure 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 4 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure 5 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure _ 2 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above r 12 D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Multiplier 2 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging X Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 24 1 EYDROLO(i1C L't'NCIIONS Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. (see p.46) D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 • Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) points = 0 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points = 7 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap waterpoints = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 3 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 3 — _ Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above r 6 1 Wetland name or number BR D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. X Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or Multiplier stream that has flooding problems Other 2 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 I 12 Comments: Wetland name or number BR A ATE:R Q'Al .11Y FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. tO°i", "OtC per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 • Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland. points = 2 • No depressions present points = 0 Figure R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): • Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the unit points = 8 • Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 • Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 • Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Add the points in the boxes above 1 I R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2; then add score to table on p. I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. tree p.54t R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit) / (average width of strewn between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 • If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 • If the ratiois5-<10 points=4 • If the ratio is 1- <5 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths Figure _ R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 • Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Figure _ Add the points in the boxes above r R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? INIMMIMSIMMMINIMP (see p.57) Multiplier Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other _ (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 r� • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. I Comments: Wetland name or number BR e G '%\ A 1 ER QtIAl.1'I Y FUNCTIONS — Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water qualit. (onIN ( score per box) L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (l0m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft points = 3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m) wide and < 16 ft points = 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked Figure L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 of the unit points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with poly. ons of different vegetation types Figure Add the points in the boxes above ___ r--1 L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would quay as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2; then add score to table on p. 1 I I IYIROI OGIC 1-1 "NCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. (see p 62 L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m) wide. points = 4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Figure _ Record the points in the boxes above I L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Multiplier Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4; then add score to table on p. 1 I I Comments: Wetland name or number BR WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (onb I score S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? per Pox) (.see p 64) S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100ft. horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 • Slope is 2% - 5%. points = 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use NRCS definitions). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 2 • Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation olygons Figure— Total for S 1 Add the •oints in the boxes above ___ r S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Multiplier Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2; then add score to table on p. I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. /see p.681 s 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows). • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Add the .oints in the boxes above ___ ..1_ r S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? ___ (see p. 70) Multiplier Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems WetlandOt r (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland name or number BR 5w sFb'i.ur.,NV § ,'.? .' f c•. d �na'°I'�cstt,+t •'w if N R-yC, ^°°:}"t`'_•{ 1I:1BIl'1"I 11'NC IIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. M { + G,p_ lone' score per hug) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): — Size threshold for each class is herbaceous, moss/ground- of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 1 structure points = 0 Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed 2 X Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: X The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map 4 structures or more points = 4 2 structures points = 1 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): The water regime has to descriptions of hydroperiods). more types present points = 3 more types present points = 2 present points = 1 present points = 0 Map of hydroperiods Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for X Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or X_ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types Saturated only 1 type X Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): ft2 (different patches of the same reed canarygrass, purple points = 2 species points = 1 points = 0 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 — 19 List species below if you want to: < 5 species 11 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is vegetation (described in HI.1), or high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes r or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is o47) always "high". Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure , _ 2 None 0points Low = 1 point Moderate - 2 points OP&.p `"" [riparian braided channels] Niel = 3 points I 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): of checks is the number of points and 6 ft. long) vegetation extends at least for at least 33 ft. (10m) or muskrat for denning (cut shrubs or trees that have branches are present in areas that by amphibians) stratum of plants 78 is an error. 2 Check the habitat, features that are present in the wetland. The number you put into the next column. X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter X Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying Invasive cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each plants NOTE: he 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above' 10 I Wetland name or number BR H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? torah 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Figure 4 Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 X 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) 0 H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points Comments: Wetland name or number BR H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http: wdfia'. wa.gov. hab; phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) 3 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 8 i TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 1 10 1 • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1! 18 I Comments: Wetland name or number BR CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type -- Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 Cat. l SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has Cat. I Cat. II Dual Rating I/II less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/1I). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. At least 3/L of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Cat I Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO X not a Heritage Wetland SC3 B (see p. 87) Cat. I . Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. if you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of rating NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I 140, = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland name or number BR SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90) Cat. I Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO = X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Cat. I Cat. II Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square ft.) YES = Category I NO = Category II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Cat. II Cat. III Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its junctions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport -- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis — lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1 Comments: Appendix C Wetland Functions and Values Forms Wetland Functions & Values Form N a) Lake to Sound Trail Wetland I.D. Date:02/09/11 Local Rating: Cat 2 PFO Ecology Category: Cowardin Class: High -Wetland 1 is large and forested. Moderate -Limited by opportunity. Moderate -Opportunity from surrounding urban setting. Moderate High -High interspersion of water and vegetation. Moderate -Plant diversity is low. High -The Black River is associated with the wetland. Moderate -Limited emergent vegetation. Moderate -No evidence of wetland associated mammal use was observed. Moderate Moderate 0 i v.,- N 7 N N ,_, M ,� N S v'i r� 7 N r ,--. M —XXXXXXXXXXX N .— Wetland 1 has a high holding capacity due to depressional association with the Black River and its large size. The wetland has large areas of standing water. The wetland provides long duration The wetland has dense trees and shrubs. Wetland 1 has dense herbaceous vegetation The upland surrounding Wetland 1 is partially developed. The wetland has large areas of inundation with leaf litter. A frog was observed in the buffer of Wetland 1. Dense trees and shrubs in the wetland. Wetland 1 provides valuable habitat for wetland associated birds. Wetland 1 is associated with a fish bearing water (Black River). The wetland has limited diversity. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage 0 0 Function/Value Wetland Functions & Values Form Lake to Sound Trail M Wetland I.D. PEM/PSS Ecology Category: IV Local Rating: Cat 3 Wetland size: _0.18 ac Date:02/09/11 Cowardin Class: Occurrence Low -Much of the water flow in and out of the wetland is channelized. Low -Limited area where ponding can occur. Low- Limited area where ponding can occur. f 71 b O Low -Upland around wetland has been disturbed. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. CVN ) v', N Wetland 3 has a limited holding capacity due to outlets and small size. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has limited opportunities. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has limited opportunities. The wetland is not associated with a water course. Wetland 3 has dense herbaceous vegetation and an outlet. Wetland 3 has low vegetation diversity and is small. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but habitat is limited by size. The wetland is adjacent to the gravel trail and is small in size. No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to support any wetland associated mammals. Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland associated birds. Not associated with a fish bearing water. Low diversity and dominated by an invasive species. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. X X XXXXXX Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization f Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Wetland Functions & Values Form UD cn Q Lake to Sound Trail Wetland I.D. 0.04 ac Date:02/09/11 Local Rating: Cat 2 Wetland size: PFO Ecology Category: Cowardin Class: 0 U 0 cG FunctionNalue Low -Wetland 4 is small. Low -Limited opportunity. Low -Limited opportunity. Low -Low plant diversity. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. 3 0 kr) r ri in M M N Cf.)p , .--, Wetland 4 has a limited holding capacity due to outlets and small size. The wetland does not have dense herbaceous vegetation. The wetland does not have dense herbaceous vegetation. The wetland is not associated with a water course. Wetland 4 does not provide this function because there is no outlet. There is only one Cowardin class and vegetation is sparse. A stream (Black River) and other wetlands are located within 1 mile. A stream (Black River) and other wetlands are located within 1 mile. No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to support any wetland associated mammals. Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland associated birds. Not associated with a fish bearing water. Wetland 4 has low plant diversity. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Wetland Functions & Values Form a) Lake to Sound Trail N Wetland I.D. Local Rating: Cat 2 Wetland size: 0.30 ac Date:02/09/11 PEM Ecology Category: Cowardin Class: 0 U U 0 cas FunctionNalue Moderate -Wetland 5 may have been constructed for the purpose of flood storage and sediment/toxicant removal. High -Wetland 5 may have been constructed for the purpose of flood storage and sediment/toxicant removal. High -Wetland 5 may have been constructed for the purpose of flood storage and sediment/toxicant removal. Low -Constricted outlet. Low -Near Monster Rd. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. Low-Ponding likely becomes very limited for much of the year. N M M el M N Wetland 5 is not associated with a water course and does not receive water from sheet flow . The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation and opportunity from upgradient sources. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation and opportunity from upgradient sources The wetland is not associated with a water course. Wetland 5 has deciduous vegetation, but a constricted outlet. Water levels fluctuate and the wetland is surrounded by trail and railroad tracks. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but habitat is limited by size and fluctuating water levels. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but habitat is limited by size and fluctuating water levels No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to support any wetland associated mammals. Wetland 5 has open water and emergent vegetation. Not associated with a fish bearing water. Dominates are not native and plant diversity is relatively low. Single Cowardin Class. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Wetland Functions & Values Form cn cn cn cn Lake to Sound Trail Wetland I.D. Date:02/09/ 11 Local Rating: Cat 3 Wetland size: _0.04 ac PEM Ecology Category: Cowardin Class: N cti a 0 cC Function/Value Low -Very small, shallow depressions Low -Only two small areas where ponding can occur. Low -Only two small areas where ponding can occur. Low -Small areas of inundation 0 Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. v) �t 'r Wetland 6 has a limited holding capacity due small size. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has limited opportunities. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has limited opportunities. The wetland is not associated with a water course. Wetland 6 is small and has no outlet. Wetland 6 is small and surrounded by gravel trails/drives. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but habitat is limited by size and small areas of inundation. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but habitat is limited by size and small areas of inundation. No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to support any wetland associated mammals. Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland associated birds. Not associated with a fish bearing water. Dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Wetland Functions & Values Form Lake to Sound Trail 0 U N N Wetland I.D. PEM/PFO Ecology Category: III Local Rating: Cat III Cowardin Class: Occurrence 0 0 U z Function/Value Low -Very small, shallow depressions Low -Very limited shallow areas of inundation Low -Limited habitat structure within wetland Low -Inundation likely becomes very limited for much of the year. M Wetland 7 has a limited holding capacity due to slope with micro -depressions. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has no opportunities. The wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, but has no opportunities. The wetland is not associated with a water course. Wetland 7 has no surface outlet. Wetland 7 is adjacent to the Black River and associated habitats. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but habitat is limited by size and small areas of inundation. Herbaceous vegetation throughout wetland, but lacks sufficient inundation. No permanent water and habitat is insufficient to support any wetland associated mammals. Lacks required open water ratio to support wetland associated birds. Not associated with a fish bearing water. Dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. No scientific value or suitable parking. No unique features or threatened or endangered species are known to be in WS-2. Flood Flow Alteration Sediment Removal Nutrient & Toxicant Removal Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization Production of Organic Matter and its Export General Habitat Suitability Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Habitat for Amphibians Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds General Fish Habitat Native Plant Richness Educational or Scientific Value Uniqueness and Heritage Appendix D Site Photographs Lake to Sound Trail— SegmentA Photograph 1. Wetland 1/2 Complex facing west from north of Naches Avenue SW on the proposed trail location. Photograph 2. Wetland 1/2 Complex facing northeast from north of Naches Avenue SW on the proposed trail location. June 2013 56_ 1521 _fR4 (R/4T411/1R) D- I Critical Areas Report Lake to Sound Trail— SegmentA Photograph 3. Wetland 3 facing southeast from just south of tha proposed trail location. Photograph 4. Wetland 4 facing south from the buffer north of the wetland. June 2013 554-1521-084 (B/3T300B) D-2 Critical Areas Report King! County Lake to Sound Trail— SegmentA Photograph 5. Wetland 5 facing northeast from the proposed trail location. Photograph 6. Wetland 6 facing west from the eastern end of the wetland. June 2013 D-3 Critical Areas Report ss4_1s71_17RAIR/3T2/1fR) Lake to Sound Trail— SegmentA Photograph 7. Wetland 7 facing west from the eastern boundary of the wetland. Photograph 8. View of left bank riparian vegetation along the Black River, looking east from Fort Dent Park. Note presence o* shrub vegetation and scattered small trees. Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species are also present. June 2013 D Critical Areas Report 554_ 1521-nR4 (R/3T3nfR) King County Lake to Sound Trail— Segment Photograph 9. View of proposed trail alignment, looking east from near the Green River Trail. Note degraded understory riparian conditions and the lack of vegetated ground cover. The trees will be maintained in place, where feasible. Photograph 10. View of riparian conditions on right (bank of Black River, looking south from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. Note the presence of non-native vegetation and scarcity of mature trees. June 2013 [ [/. 1 [') 1 /)4/ /72/27'2ne P I)-5 Critical Areas Report Lake to Sound Trail — SegmentA Photograph 11. View of existing gravel trail/proposed trail alignment, looking east from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. The Black River is on the right side of the photo and the Black River Pump station is in the background. June 2013 D-6 Critical Areas Report 554-1521-0R4 (R/3T300R) rwr Cm„”,,, Appendix E Mitigation Plans PLANTING QUANTITY TAB l - THIS SHEET ONLY - tg *- v w ' 08 i Z 1/00•1 4. a z MITIGATION PLAN z J O H ~ — CO F- D u) t/1 Z O W U W0 0 CC o � O o Z I / I / I i I / I / I / II / I � I / / PLANTING QUANTITY TAB ,-,THIS SHEET ONLY - s3 �...-__r nr rAn'grr =5a ego NOM LUM cui ORNA WA% MY ROSE PLIYRIFSE RV a 4 a O gggg G= OA � Aih it ,,,'' UPI 133HS 333 3NIlH31YW /- // I 1jI L. N O. 2 MITIGATION PLAN 0 a U ( co | z.133Hs33a3N11H3I_ PLANTING QUANTITY TAB - THIS SHEET ONLY - \\ wawa wS @! %- j\/\)\3// \q\k\\</| \- !>>\ | §8 t MITIGATION PLAN (� 1�} CTION NOTES PLANTING QUANTITY TAB - THIS SHEET ONLY - rupploppm! 'BEAKED HAZELNUT 107 BLACK HAWTHORN 107 OCEAN SPRAT 107 a 2 MITIGATION PLAN YS hg I3 PLANTING NOTES: L TREES 1" GRo \ ] / 4,1 et 8 re |;!| ( !lb 3§ !` | 1• CAL.I CONT or BBB 11 CAL. I CONT. or BBB 1• CAL. I CONT. or BBB X HT. /CONT. or BBB 1•CAL. /CONT . or BBB ( 1 GAL CONT. 1 GAL CONT. § ;_ \\\ \j\ $ )§ -� § | . 8 ill|q \ | ''! q §§ !|!§g]§ §| h M §!| IIOTAWCAL NAME TREES ACER CIRCINATUM • ACER MACROPHYLUM • BETULA PAVRIFERA • PICEA SITCHENSIS • POPULUS BALSAMFERA • en SHRUBS CORYLUS CORNUTA ]§ OEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS MYRICA CALIFORNICA ROSA NUTKANA RUBUS PARVIFLORUS \ 38 i ) \] . | ;F484» . ,. 51!!!!;!! TYPICAL TREE AND SHRUB SPACING Iu EROUS TREES M 3' NEIGNI ARE COUNTED AS EOM/ H 0. MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS 121 MITIGATION NOTES GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACRES AVE SW i� I62 4 September 30, 2015 Phil Segami Assistant Local Programs Engineer Northwest Region Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Community Development Subject: No Effect Documentation, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Dear Mr. Segami: Enclosed is a copy of the no effects assessment for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge. The bridge is part of a trail project proposed by King County, the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as part of the larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The federal nexus for this project is federal -aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Division. The enclosed analysis amends one that was completed in October 2011. That analysis found that the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project will have no effect on all species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or on designated or proposed critical habitat for these species. The design considered for the previous analysis included a crossing of the Black River on an existing bridge at Monster Road. To address constructability and safety concerns, the design was subsequently modified to add a new pedestrian crossing approximately 150 feet east of the Monster Road bridge. The construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will result in potential environmental impacts that were not addressed in the previous analysis, triggering the need for a new analysis. No other changes have been made to the project design that would alter the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason the new analyses presented here address only the construction of the new pedestrian bridge. Based on the information and analyses presented in the enclosed document, we have determined that the proposed project will have no effect on ESA -listed species or critical habitat. The species and critical habitat addressed in detail are Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout, and proposed critical habitat for steelhead. The City of Renton participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) program that is required to comply with the ESA. As directed by the September 22, 2008, biological opinion issued by NMFS for the NFIP, FEMA requires projects proposed in the floodplain to be assessed to determine Phil Segami September 30, 2015 Page 2 whether they will adversely affect ESA -listed species or their habitat. By demonstrating that the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge project will have no effect on these resources, the enclosed analysis also documents the project's compliance with the terms of the NFIP biological opinion. This assessment satisfies FHWA's responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the ESA at this time. We are sending you this copy of our assessment for your files. We will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared to reevaluate potential project impacts if necessary. In compliance with the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, essential fish habitat (EFH) was assessed for the project. It was determined that the project will not have an adverse effect on EFH. Please contact Mike Hall at 206-394-3700 if you require additional information or have any questions about this project. Sincerely, (24 anon Rich Capital Project Manager, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Enclosure: Endangered Species Act No Effect Documentation: Lake To Sound Trail — Segment A Pedestrian Bridge ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division PO Box 47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Contents Introduction 1 Project Location and Setting 2 Project Description 7 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures 12 Action Area 13 Species and Habitat Information 16 Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis 16 Species and Critical Habitat Occurrence 18 Analysis of Effects 22 Conclusions and Effect Determinations 27 Literature Cited 29 Tables Table 1. ESA -Listed Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis 16 Table 2. Effects Determinations for Species and Designated Critical Habitat 28 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2. Project Features 8 Figure 3. Project Action Area 14 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendices October 2011 No -effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Bridge Plan and Elevation and Proposed Ground Improvement Areas Species Lists from NMFS and USFWS Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Introduction King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile-long segment of what will ultimately be part of the larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non -motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. The 1.2-mile-long segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a regional trail system that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Construction work for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A pedestrian bridge is anticipated to start in May 2016 and is expected to last approximately 5 months, excluding landscaping and minor finishes. Once complete, Segment A will be part of a larger planned system that serves employment and residential centers in South King County and connects to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A will provide a much -needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. This analysis amends a no -effects assessment that was completed in October 2011 (Appendix A). The design considered for the previous analysis included a crossing of the Black River on an existing bridge at Monster Road. To address constructability and safety concerns, the design was subsequently modified to add a new pedestrian crossing approximately 150 feet east of the Monster Road bridge. The construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will result in potential environmental impacts that were not addressed in the previous analysis, triggering the need for a new analysis. No other changes have been made to the project design that would alter the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason the new analyses presented here address only the construction of the new pedestrian bridge. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of FHWA in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of essential fish habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal -aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Project Location and Setting The project site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Renton in King County, Washington. The proposed bridge crossing is at approximately river mile 0.25 of the Black River in the Lower Green River sub -basin of Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 (Green/Duwamish). The project site is in Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) number 171100130305, Green River. The approximate geographic coordinates of the project site are 47.475° N, 122.247° W. The proposed pedestrian bridge is part of Lake to Sound Segment A, which extends from Naches Avenue SW in Renton, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, and enters Tukwila at the two railroad bridges over the Black River. Segment A joins the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (Figure 1). WDFW 2014, WSDOT. Sources: King County, City of Rent 'arametrix a J City Boundary Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat The project action area is located in a developed setting, zoned primarily for industrial uses, with large amounts of impervious surface area. A large gravel pit and concrete recycling plant are located north of the Monster Road Bridge, warehouses and an industrial operation are located to the north and south of the trail alignment, and railroad tracks run both parallel and perpendicular to the trail alignment. The project action area also includes a portion of the Black River Riparian Forest, which is designated as a resource conservation area under the City of Renton code. The Black River Riparian Forest is largely natural open space with forested riparian and wetland habitats. The area supports a diverse wildlife community, including bald eagles, great blue herons, and many waterfowl species, along with several species of raptors, songbirds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. A gravel maintenance road in this area that parallels the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe railroad tracks is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. Historically, the Black River drained Lake Washington and received waters from the Cedar River and Springbrook Creek before joining with the Green River to become the Duwamish River. Ever since the diversion of the Cedar River into Lake Washington in 1912 and the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916, the primary source of water in the Black River has been Springbrook Creek (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Instream habitat of the Black River within the project action area is dominated by run -type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths greater than 6 feet. During a site visit in February 2011, the wetted width was approximately 25 feet, and no pools or riffles were observed. Bank -full width was estimated at 30 feet. Streambed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a 50-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. The streambanks at the project site, and extending a substantial distance upstream and downstream, are extensively covered with riprap, most of which is overgrown with Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus) and other non-native species. No LWD is present in the Black River within the project action area, and the presence of the Black River pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Salmonids could use the Black River in the project action area for migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is limited. Mobility and survival of juveniles and adults are impeded by the lack of cover provided by the steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species Photo 7. • blique aerial view of the Black River in the project action area, looking east. Black River pump station at top, Monster Road Bridge at bottom. Dashed red box indicates approximate location of proposed pedestrian bridge. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Riparian vegetation in the project action area i s sparse, with only a few scattered deciduous trees (Photo 1). Non-native shrub vegetation is dominant; the right (north) bank of the Black River between the pump station and the Monster Road Bridge is covered almost entirely by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) (Photo 2). Overall, the vegetated buffer of the Black River in the project action area is generally degraded, of limited width, and dominated by herbaceous, shrub, and non-native species. A few black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and red alder (Alnus rubra) are greater than 15 feet tall; bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings and saplings are also present (Photo 3). Other vegetation in the riparian area includes reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor in the project action area is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or LWD recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. k Photo 2. The Black River in the project action area, looking east (upstream) from the existing Monster Road bridge, toward the Black River pump station. The Douglas -fir sapling at left (on the north bank) is near the upstream edge of the ground improvement area and will not be removed for bridge construction. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Photo 3. South bank of the Black River in the project action area. The alder tree left of center is within the proposed ground improvement area and will be removed, as will the westem redcedarsaplings visible to its left. The Black River is on Ecology's current 303(d) list for violation of water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria (Ecology 2015). King County has monitored water quality at a station approximately 1 mile upstream of the project action area since 1977. Water quality conditions at that station have consistently been characterized as poor, with low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high temperatures, high fecal coliform bacteria, high turbidity, high total phosphorus and ammonia, and high conductivity (King County 2015a). In its most recent water quality report, King County (2015b) assigned the stream a water quality index score of 27, indicating a high level of concern for water quality. The primary factors behind the score are high concentrations of bacteria and nutrients, and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (King County 2015b). Temperatures in Springbrook Creek upstream of the Black River regularly exceed 15° C during the months of June, July, August, and September, (King County 2015a), indicating conditions functioning at risk for salmonids. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are consistently below Ecology's minimum level for salmonid rearing and migration (6.5 milligrams per liter) from May through October, and below the minimum level for spawning (8.0 milligrams per liter) during most other months (King County 2015a). Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Data from WDFW (2015a, b) data indicate that Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout all have documented presence within the Black River in the project action area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. The author of this assessment conducted a site visit on April 3, 2015, verifying instream and riparian habitat conditions within project action area. Additional information about site -specific habitat conditions was collected by scientists conducting field visits for studies to support federal, state, and local permitting. Information from those field visits was also incorporated into this analysis. Before conducting fieldwork, project biologists reviewed maps and materials on the soils, hydrology, topography, land use, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat at and near the project site. Project Description The project elements that are the subject of this analysis are a pedestrian bridge spanning the Black River, and approach trail segments connecting the bridge with the rest of Lake to Sound Trail Segment A. The trail will typically consist of approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. Currently, the Black River in the vicinity of the project site is crossed by Monster Road, a principal arterial that carries approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project will construct a new crossing structure upstream of Monster Road for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other trail users. Project Elements A prefabricated steel girder pedestrian bridge, approximately 109 feet long and 14 feet wide, will be installed to allow trail users to cross the Black River separately from vehicle traffic. The bridge will be located about 150 feet east of the existing Monster Road bridge (Figure 2). A detailed plan and elevation of the bridge is provided in Appendix B. The contractor will construct the foundation system, then hoist the bridge on a crane and place it on the foundation. The crane will operate from the level areaabove the bank crest. All above -ground bridge elements will be situated upslope of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and outside of the 100-year floodplain elevation. Areas of Temporary Impacts Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Foundations I I o � 0 -- .— - River Ordinary High Water Mark Ground Improvement Areas Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Substrates in the vicinity of the bridge are relatively deep, liquefiable soils that are prone to settlement and lateral spreading during a seismic event. To improve seismic stability and to prevent undue passive pressure on the bridge foundation, ground improvements will be necessary. The method to be employed is wet soil mixing, also known as the deep mixing method. This ground improvement technique improves weak soils by mechanically mixing them with cementitious binder slurry. A powerful drill constructs columns of stable soil by advancing an auger with radial mixing paddles located near the bottom of the drill string. The binder slurry is pumped to the tool as it advances; additional soil mixing is achieved as the tool is withdrawn. Schematic depiction of the deep mixing method. The deep mixing method creates columns of stabilized soil upon which the bridge foundations can be constructed. A total of approximately 60 soil columns will be created in this manner, stabilizing an approximately 16-foot by 35-foot area on the south side of the river and an approximately 16-foot by 25- foot area on the north side of the river (Appendix B). It is estimated that 4 soil columns can typically be mixed per day. Each column will be approximately 4 feet in diameter and will extend 30 to 40 feet below existing grade. Excavation for bridge foundations can begin the day after the completion of ground improvements. All ground improvement areas will be above the OHWM, and the drilling equipment will remain upslope of the OHWM at all times. The drilling equipment will be outfitted with extension arms that will allow access to the ground improvement areas from level ground; some benching may be necessary if trackhoe- mounted equipment is used for drilling. Existing riprap will be removed from the areas slated for ground improvement. Temporary three -sided sheet pile containment walls with plastic lining will be installed to prevent soil and binder slurry from entering the river. The containment walls will be installed at the downslope end and along either side of each ground improvement area. The containment walls will be installed above the OHWM and the ground improvement areas will be set back from the containment walls by approximately 5 feet, meaning the lowest portions of the ground improvement areas will be at least 5 feet above the OHWM. The sheet pile walls will be embedded approximately 10 feet and will extend about 7 feet above the ground surface. Installation and removal of the sheet pile walls will be conducted with a crane -suspended vibratory hammer, such that the piles can be installed on a slope distant from where equipment actually sits. While wet soil mixing is underway, a trackhoe will be used to gather excess slurry and spoils, which will be delivered to an approved upland disposal site, such as a gravel pit, for backfilling or reprocessing. It is Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat estimated that about 1,500 cubic yards of soil -cement spoils will need to be hauled off for disposal. After ground improvements are complete and riprap has been reestablished on the banks, ihe sheet pile walls will be removed. The bridge will have a corrugated metal form deck during installation. Once the bridge is in place, concrete will be pumped onto the bridge to create the final deck surface. Concrete will be pumped from equipment that is located above the OHWM. Edge containment will be employed to ensure that no concrete enters the river below. There will be no permanent light fixtures on the bridge. The Black River 100-year floodplain elevation at the proposed pedestrian bridge is calculated at 22.57 feet (NAVD 88) using the 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map. The trail surface across the bridge will be 6 feet above the floodplain elevation, which will allow at least 3 feet of clearance from the bottom of any bridge element to the 100-year floodplain elevation. Construction machinery that will be used includes trucks, backhoes, a trackhoe, compressors, pumps, a drill rig (for wet soil mixing), and a crane for bridge placement. Equipment staging, fueling, and washing - out will take place in upland areas along the Monster Road corridor. Because the ground improvement areas are entirely within the regulatory buffer of the Black River, some staging of equipment in that buffer may be necessary. The project will result in no net cut or fill within the 100-year floodplain. Above the floodplain, the project will entail approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill. Overwater work for bridge installation will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Conditions may include limiting such work to the fish window established for the project. Approximately 45 linear feet of trail will be constructed to connect the bridge to the rest of Lake To Sound Trail Segment A; the trail will be built the using the same methods as described for the rest of the trail (Appendix A). The approach trail segments will be asphalt pavement, approximately 12 feet wide, bounded by a 2-foot-wide gravel shoulder and a 1-foot-wide clear zone on each side. The proposed project is a non -motorized facility and therefore will not add any pollutant -generating impervious surface (PGIS) to the landscape. For this reason, no stormwater treatment is required per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Similarly, flow control facility requirements are waived because the anticipated increase in the 100-year peak runoff flow rate under developed conditions will not exceed 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) in each of the four threshold drainage areas that were identified within the project boundaries (Parametrix 2015). The trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The surface of the pedestrian bridge and associated project features will add approximately 1,080 square feet of impervious surface (Parametrix 2015). For bank stability, the existing riprap that is temporarily removed for wet soil mixing will be put back in place or replaced with similarly sized riprap after construction work is complete. Riprap removal and replacement will be limited to areas above the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat OHWM. Areas that are not covered by impervious surfaces or riprap will be hydroseeded with native grasses. Project Sequencing and Timeline Construction work for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A pedestrian bridge is anticipated to start in May 2016 and is expected to last approximately 5 months, excluding landscaping and minor finishes. Construction activities will occur primarily during daylight hours. The actual start dates of construction will be dependent on approval of permits, including the HPA. It should be noted that the construction sequence listed below is only a likely representation of what the actual schedule may be and that variations in work timing may occur due to contractor delays or adverse weather conditions. Some of the elements will overlap and likely shift as deemed necessary and appropriate by the construction manager. It is expected that all over -water work (activities #6 and #8 below) for the installation of the bridge will be accomplished in approximately two weeks. The general sequence of major construction activities is listed below. 1. Mobilization and installation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) according to the temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan 2. Removal of existing vegetation and riprap in ground improvement areas (approximately 1 week) 3. Installation of sheet piles (approximately 1.5 weeks) 4. Ground improvements (deep mixing method) (approximately 4 weeks) 5. Installation of bridge foundations (approximately 3 weeks) 6. Placement of prefabricated bridge on foundations (approximately 2 weeks) 7. Placement of crushed surfacing top course for approach trail segments (less than 1 week) 8. Installation of asphalt pavement on trail surface and concrete on bridge deck (less than 1 week) 9. Replacement of riprap on river bank (approximately 1 week) 10. Revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas 11. Removal of BMPs (including sheet piles) and demobilization (2 weeks) Overwater work for bridge installation will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the HPA issued by WDFW. Conditions may include limiting such work to the fish window established for the project. Ground improvement will be timed to correspond with low water levels, typically influenced by tide and season. Approved work windows for Green River and its tributaries typically extend from August 1 through August 31. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures The project is subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations that protect wetlands, streams, and other natural resources. Many laws require avoidance or minimization of impacts to resources, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Examples of regulatory review and/or permitting processes likely to result in the implementation of impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures include the following: • Clean Water Act section 404 permitting, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification, administered at the federal level by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and implemented at the state level by Ecology • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit • The WDFW HPA review process • Review under the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program • City of Renton building, grading, clearing and other applicable permits King County will consult with WDFW and/or the City of Renton to determine appropriate measures to minimize anticipated effects. Specific impact avoidance and minimization measures for the project are identified in Appendix C. All areas temporarily affected by construction, where revegetation is possible, will be restored to pre - construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. Disturbed banks and riparian zones will be restored as close as possible to pre -project condition. Native vegetation damaged or destroyed by construction in the riparian zone will be replaced where feasible, using a proven methodology and species composition, planting densities, and a maintenance plan approved by WDFW and King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review. Compensatory mitigation for effects related to installation of the pedestrian bridge will be achieved through implementation of a plan developed by King County for the Lake to Sound —Segment A project. The plan includes habitat improvement and restoration to mitigate for project -related effects on stream buffers. All unavoidable impacts to stream buffers will be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-3-090). Specific mitigation plans will be included in permit applications for construction of the project. The mitigation plans will focus on providing riparian buffer and wetland buffer mitigation that provides equal or greater functions than were impacted. The mitigation site will be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. The riparian buffer component of the overall mitigation plan consists of planting native trees and shrubs within the regulated riparian buffer of the Black River. The effects of clearing trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) will be offset by replanting native trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. On -site mitigation (in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project and within the regulated buffer of the Black River) was selected as the preferred option. Riparian mitigation will consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation will offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that will benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Action Area The project action area is defined as the area with the potential to be affected directly or indirectly by the project actions. Project components with the potential to affect the species addressed in this analysis include construction activities (which may contribute to increased turbidity and sedimentation in waterbodies and elevated noise levels in terrestrial areas), modifications to riparian areas, and increases in the amount of non -pollutant -generating impervious surface area (which may affect the quantity of stormwater discharges to waterbodies). The action area for this project includes all aquatic habitats extending from 100 feet upstream of the proposed bridge location to 200 feet downstream, as well as all terrestrial habitats within a 3,800 foot radius of the project footprint (Figure 3). The following subsections describe the basis for these determinations. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Pedestrian Bridge 0 m J City Boundary Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Aquatic Considerations Construction activities in or adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands have the potential to introduce and transport sediment into the aquatic environment at and downstream of the immediate construction or work area. The proposed project will have no potential for effects related to in -water construction because no ground -disturbing activities will take place below the OHWM of any project action area waterbodies. It is possible that areas where ground -disturbing activities remove existing vegetation may contribute to elevated levels of turbidity during subsequent rain events; however, this possibility will be minimized by using BMPs in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). Overwater construction activities will comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the HPA and other permits issued for the project, including provisions designed to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects on habitat in receiving waters. Permits for overwater construction activities in the Green River watershed commonly require in -water or overwater work to be conducted during the summer (primarily August). Mean daily flows in the Black River at that time of year are consistently between 10 and 100 cubic feet per second. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has established a 200-foot mixing zone for construction -related turbidity in streams with flows in that range. Based on the above, the aquatic portion of the project action area is conservatively defined as extending from 100 feet upstream of the proposed bridge location to 200 feet downstream. This is the extent of potential construction -related increases in turbidity. Terrestrial Considerations Noise from construction defines the in -air porl:ion of the project action area. Nearly all project elements occur near Monster Road, a principal arterial. Therefore, traffic noise was considered to be part of the baseline (ambient) noise level in the project action area. The baseline noise level along Monster Road was determined by the volume of traffic and speed of traffic. The average daily traffic volume of Monster Road is approximately 11,000 vehicles, which equates to approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour (WSDOT 2014). The posted speed limit near the project site is 35 miles per hour. Based on these numbers, the baseline (ambient) noise level along Monster Road is approximately 66 decibels on the A - weighted scale (dBA) at 50 feet. Background noise levels in the project action area are conservatively estimated to be approximately 50 dBA, similar to levels in suburban and residential areas. The surrounding area includes industrial areas (e.g., concrete recycling plant and BNSF railway corridor) as well as undeveloped areas (e.g., Black River Riparian Forest); the 50-dBA estimate falls between typical noise levels for those types of areas. The threshold level for detection of construction noise by ESA -listed terrestrial species is approximately 4 dBA above background levels. Therefore, the detection level for construction noise is 54 dBA. The loudest construction activity will be vibratory driving and removal of sheet piles, which is expected to generate noise levels of approximately 101 dBA at 50 feet (WSDOT 2014) during two relatively brief periods (approximately 1 to 1.5 weeks) near the beginning and end of the construction sequence. No impact pile driving or other activities that generate extremely loud noises will occur. Noise from other construction equipment is not expected to exceed 90 dBA. Because the noise level of other equipment is more than 10 dBA less than that of vibratory pile driving, other equipment will not make a measurable Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat difference in overall project -related noise levels (WSDOT 2014). Therefore, the maximum construction - related noise level will be 101 dBA. Surface conditions in the project vicinity are soft (i.e., ground cover exists between the noise source and the receptor), meaning construction noise (a point source) will attenuate at a rate of about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Similarly, the traffic noise (a line source) will attenuate at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Based on these estimates, noise from the loudest construction activity (vibratory pile driving) will attenuate to the 54 dBA detection threshold approximately 3,800 feet from the project footprint. Noise from other equipment will attenuate to that threshold approximately 1,300 feet from the project footprint. Traffic noise attenuates to that level at approximately 300 feet, meaning construction noise will not be masked by traffic noise before it attenuates to background levels. The extent of project -related noise is thus calculated as the distance at which construction noise is expected to be less than or equal to background noise levels. This distance, calculated as 3,800 feet, defines the terrestrial extent of the project action area. Indirect Effects Considerations The project action area for the proposed action does not reflect any potential indirect effects associated with land use development. This is because the project has independent utility and is not linked to, or dependent on, any other projects or developments in the area. The project is not dependent on any land use development or changes in land use or zoning, and no land use development projects depend directly on completion of this project. Species and Habitat Information Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis Lists of species that are listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and that may be present in the project action area were obtained from the NMFS and USFWS websites in July 2015 (Appendix D). Based on a review of habitat associations and conditions, as well as known and expected distribution, three ESA - listed or proposed species have the potential to be affected by project activities and are addressed in this BA. These are Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead trout, and bull trout (Table 1). Table 1. ESA -Listed Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis Species Status Federal Jurisdiction Critical Habitat Status Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened NMFS (Puget Sound ESU) Designated; present in project action area Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Threatened NMFS (Puget Sound DPS) Proposed; present in project action area Bull trout Designated; none in (Saivelinus confluentus) Threatened USFWS project action area ESU — Evolutionarily Significant Unit DPS — Distinct Population Segment Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat The USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System identified five ESA -listed wildlife species as potentially occurring in areas that might be affected by the proposed project (Appendix D). None of these species is expected to occur in the project action area, however, for the following reasons: • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and gray wolf (Canis lupus) are identified as potentially occurring in King County. However, the project action area is in a lowland setting with relatively high levels of human activity and no nearby roadless areas and thus does not provide suitable habitat for either of these species. No observations of either species have been documented within 5 miles of the project action area (WDFW 2015a). • Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) require old -growth forest for nesting and marine habitat for foraging. No breeding or foraging habitat is present in the project action area and no observations have been documented within 5 miles (WDFW 2015a). The nearest location where critical habitat has been designated for the marbled murrelet is more than 25 miles from the project action area. • Yellow -billed cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus) require large blocks of riparian forest habitat for breeding and foraging. No such habitat is present in or near the project action area. Currently, the species no longer breeds in western Canada and the northwestern continental United States (Washington, Oregon, and Montana) (79 FR 59992, October 3, 2014). No observations of this species have been documented within 10 miles of the project action area (WDFW 2015a). No critical habitat for the yellow -billed cuckoo has been proposed in Washington State. • Streaked horned larks (Eremophila alpestris strigata) are known to occur in Washington State only in portions of southern Puget Sound, along the Washington coast, and at lower Columbia River islands (78 FR 61.452, October 3, 2013). Breeding habitat for streaked horned larks in Washington consists of grasslands and sparsely vegetated areas at airports, sandy islands, and coastal spits. The subspecies is largely absent from the Puget Trough during the nonbreeding season; individuals observed in this area outside of the breeding season have been seen using habitats similar to those used for breeding. No such habitat is present in the project action area, and the project action area is not within the known range of the subspecies. The nearest location where critical habitat has been designated for the streaked horned lark is more than 90 miles from the project action area. Based on the above, the proposed project has no potential to affect Canada lynx, gray wolves, marbled murrelets, yellow -billed cuckoos, or streaked horned larks. These species will not be addressed further in this analysis. Information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage database indicates that no ESA -listed threatened or endangered plants are known to occur within 5 miles of the project site (WDNR 2014). The only ESA -listed plant with the potential to occur in or near the project action area is golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), which is known from historical observations in the region. Suitable habitat for golden paintbrush (open grasslands in glacial outwash prairies) is not present at any locations where project -related actions will occur. For these reasons, the proposed project has no potential to affect this species. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Species and Critical Habitat Occurrence The project action area includes the Black River approximately 0.25 mile upstream of its confluence with the Green River. Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are present in the Green River at the Black River confluence. Although the Green River is outside of the project action area, all three species could venture into the Black River, with varying degrees of likelihood. The author of this BA conducted a site visit on April 3, 2015. Additional information about site -specific habitat conditions was collected by scientists conducting field visits for studies to support federal, state, and local permitting. Information from those field visits was also incorporated into this analysis. Before conducting fieldwork, project biologists reviewed maps and materials on the soils, hydrology, topography, land use, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat at and near the project site. This site visit verified instream and riparian habitat conditions within project action area. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU are listed as threatened under the ESA (63 FR 11482, March 24 1999). Primary factors contributing to declines in Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU include habitat blockages, genetic modification of wild fish through interbreeding with hatchery fish, urbanization, logging, hydropower development, harvests, and flood control and flood effects (NMFS 1998). The overall abundance of Chinook in the Puget Sound ESU has declined substantially, with both long- and short-term abundance trending predominantly downward. According to WDFW (2015b), fall -run Chinook salmon are present in the Black River in the project action area, and rearing habitat is available in the Green River at the Black River confluence. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning or rearing do not exist in the project action area. Recent and historical records indicate that Chinook do not use the Black River for spawning or rearing (Williams et al. 1975; Harza 1995). However, small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped in Springbrook Creek above the Black River pump station. There is little if any suitable spawning habitat in Springbrook Creek, and the pump station blocks downstream passage of adult salmon (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Adult salmonids that make it past the pump station are believed to experience high levels of stress or be killed outright before spawning (Harza 1995). If any juvenile Chinook salmon are produced in Springbrook Creek, they face degraded water quality conditions and would be able exit the system only when the downstream passage facility is operating, between early April and mid -June (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Chinook salmon in the Green River system are a summer/fall-run stock. Adult summer/fall Chinook migrate upstream in the Green River from late June to mid -November, spawning from September through mid -November. Most spawning generally takes place in the mainstem Green River from river mile 23 to river mile 61.2 and in the lower 6 miles of Newaukum and Soos creeks (WDFW 2002). Those areas are more than 10 miles upstream of the Black River/Green River confluence. Most Chinook salmon in the Green River exhibit an ocean -type life history, in which juveniles migrate to estuaries during the first year of life, generally within 3 to 4 months of emergence (Lister and Genoe 1970). Seaward migration of Green River Chinook fry typically begins in January and peaks in early March; a secondary peak of outmigration (consisting of fingerlings, not fry) occurs from May through July (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). A small proportion of Green River Chinook salmon are stream- Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat type fish —that is, juveniles that overwinter in the watershed before migrating seaward (Grette and Salo 1986). Stream -type Chinook salmon may migrate to the ocean any time of year (Healey 1991). Green River summer/fall-run adult Chinook salmon may venture into the project action area while they are migrating upstream between June and mid -November. Juvenile Chinook salmon migrating down the Green River could be carried into the project action area during flood flows and other situations when water elevations downstream of the Black River pump station are higher than those on the upstream side. Overlaps between high flows and Green River juvenile outmigration are most likely to occur from January through June. Any juveniles that may be produced in the Springbrook Creek system would only be able to enter the project action area (which is downstream of the Black River pump station) from April through mid -June. Puget Sound Steelhead. The Puget Sound steelhead DPS is listed as a threatened species under the ESA (72 FR 26722, May 11, 2007). The DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous winter -run and summer -run Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead) populations, in streams within the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington. The DPS also includes steelhead from artificial propagation programs in the Green River. According to WDFW (2015b), winter steelhead are present in the Black River in the project action area. Juvenile steelhead have been captured at numerous locations in Springbrook Creek upstream of the Black River pump station, although degraded water quality in the lower reaches of the stream likely hinder juvenile survival (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Adult steelhead that migrate upstream of the pump station cannot return to the Green River mainstem (Harza 1995). The nearest documented spawning habitat is in the mainstem Green River more than 10 miles upstream of the Black River/Green River confluence (WDFW 2015b). Natural -origin steelhead that spawn in the Green River system are a winter -run (ocean -maturing) population'. Adults typically enter fresh water and migrate upstream from November through May, and spawning generally occurs from early March through mid -June (WDFW 2002; Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team 2013). Juvenile steelhead tend to reside in fresh water for 2 years or more before migrating to marine habitats. Juvenile outmigration typically takes place during April and May (Busby et al. 1996). The downstream passage facility at the Black River pump station operates between early April and mid -June, so the pump station is unlikely to hinder outmigration of juvenile steelhead. Adult steelhead may venture into the project action area while they are migrating upstream between November and May. Juvenile steelhead migrating down the Green River could be carried into the project action area during flood flows and other situations when water elevations downstream of the Black River pump station are higher than those on the upstream side. Overlaps between high flows and Green River juvenile outmigration are likely to occur during April and May. Juveniles produced in the Springbrook Creek system may also be able to enter the project action area (which is downstream of the Black River pump station) during April and May. ' A summer -run steelhead population is also present in the Green River. That population originated from the Skamania Hatchery in the Columbia River Basin and is not included in the ESA -listed Puget Sound DPS. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Bull Trout Bull trout is listed as a threatened species (64 FR 58910, November 1, 1999). Historically, bull trout were present in the White River (Mongillo 1993), which was once connected to the Green/Duwamish river system but has since been diverted to the Puyallup River. Today, the lower Green River, Duwamish River, and adjacent nearshore habitats appear to be used only by foraging anadromous bull trout that originate in other river systems (70 FR 56212, September 5, 2005). Bull trout have been reported in the lower Green River as far upstream as the mouth of Newaukum Creek (about river mile 41) (King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 2002; Goetz et al. 2004). Reports of historic use of tributaries in the lower Green River are rare (King County Department of Natural Resources 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River, and there have been no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 2015b). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by this species (Harza 1995). The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan did not identify the Green/Duwamish river system as a bull trout core area —that is, the system is not considered to be a biologically functioning unit for bull trout because it lacks the necessary combination of core habitat (i.e., habitat with all necessary components for spawning, rearing, foraging, migrating and overwintering) and a core population (Shared Strategy for Puget Sound 2007). However, the lower Green River, including the reaches immediately downstream of the project action area, supports foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for subadult and adult bull trout (USFWS 2010; WDFW 2015b). Anadromous bull trout migrate from the marine environment into freshwater habitats in the fall or early winter. Overwintering subadults and adults remain in freshwater habitats until late winter and spring (Goetz et al. 2004; USFWS 2010). Based on the absence of documented sightings and the lack of suitable habitat, bull trout are not known or expected to use the Black River in the project action area. The possibility for fish to venture from the Green River into the project action area cannot entirely be discounted, however. Adult or subadult bull trout could enter the project action area from fall through late winter. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat The lower Green River and much of the Black River, including the portion of the Black River within the project action area, have been designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (70 FR 52630, September 2. 2005). The following PCEs of Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat may be found in the project action area: 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Chinook salmon are neither known nor expected to spawn in the project action area. Water quality in the system that drains to the Black River is generally poor, characterized by high temperatures, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and elevated levels of contaminants. Streambed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts and are not likely to be suitable for spawning, incubation, or larval development. rs Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions, and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Chinook salmon are neither known nor expected to rear in the project action area, and conditions favorable for rearing are not present. Water quality in the system that drains to the Black River is generally poor, characterized by high temperatures, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and elevated levels of contaminants.. No large woody debris (LWD) is present in the stream channel in the project action area, and the Black River pump station precludes the recruitment of LWD from upstream. Kerwin and Nelson (2000) were not able to assess the existing extent or condition of off -channel habitat in the Springbrook Creek subbasin, which includes the Black River. It is clear, however, that floodplain connectivity in the Lower Green River sub -basin is severely limited as a result of the diversion of the White River, construction of levees and revetments, and operation of the Howard Hansen Dam (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels. and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: The Black River in the project action area is unlikely to function as a migratory corridor for Chinook salmon. The Black River pump station presents a significant barrier to migration. Adult fish that make it past the pump station are believed to experience high levels of stress or be killed outright before spawning (Harza 1995). If any juvenile Chinook salmon are produced in Springbrook Creek, they would be able exit the system only when the downstream passage facility is operating, between early April and mid -June. Water quality in the system that drains to the Black River is generally poor, characterized by high temperatures, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and elevated levels of contaminants. No LWD is present in the stream channel in the project action area. Mobility and survival of juveniles and adults are further impeded by the lack of natural cover provided by the steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species such as Himalayan blackberry. Puget Sound Steelhead Critical Habitat The lower Green River and much of the Black River, including the portion of the Black River within the project action area, have been proposed for designation as critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead (78 FR 2726, January 14, 2013). The PCEs identified in the proposed rule for Puget Sound steelhead are identical to the PCEs identified in the final designation of critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The existing condition of Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat PCEs is as described for Puget Sound Chinook salmon PCEs, above. Bull Trout Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated for bull trout in 2005 and then re -designated in 2010 (75 FR 63898, October 18, 2010). The portion of the Green River into which the Black River empties is mapped as Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat critical habitat for bull trout. The Green River is not within the project action area, however, and the Black River was not included in the designation. Analysis of Effects A high priority was placed on designing the project to include measures and features that avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife. Construction activity will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to existing cleared areas to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of the Black River; therefore, the project will not result in any stream fill, nor will alterations to fish passage structures be required. The following discussions analyze potential direct effects (i.e., those related to construction -related impacts, riparian habitat modifications, and the presence of the pedestrian bridge and new impervious surfaces) and indirect effects of the proposed Lake to Sound —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge project. Construction -related Impacts Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to the Black River could increase turbidity and total suspended sediment levels in the river, resulting in disrupted feeding or migration, physiological stress, or increased metabolic oxygen demand. However, by adhering to the terms of applicable federal, state, and local permits (including the HPA issued by WDFW), the project will meet applicable water quality standards. Furthermore, the potential for increased turbidity or suspended sediment levels will be minimized or avoided through the implementation of BMPs and the TESC plan in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). Moreover, construction work for pedestrian bridge installation will take place primarily during the summer months, when ESA -listed fish species are highly unlikely to be present in the project action area. Upland sources of erosion, such as construction access roads, will be contained using erosion control and sediment detention measures. Erosion control measures will be frequently inspected as to maintain a continuous barrier between ground -disturbing activities and the Black River. Proper implementation and maintenance of these and other measures described in this assessment will essentially eliminate the risk that upland activities could generate turbidity in the project action area. Project activities near waterbodies also have the potential to introduce pollutants through spills of fuel, hydraulic fluid, or other substances. All work will be conducted in compliance with the SPCC plan for the project and BMPs will be implemented to prevent construction -related pollutants from entering streams. Based on these factors, the potential for construction activities to result in the introduction of pollutants into waters that support ESA -listed fish is extremely low. Overwater work will be confined to the footprint of the new pedestrian bridge. The proper application of BMPs will ensure that no concrete, falling material, or dust enters project waters. All overwater work for bridge installation will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the HPA issued by WDFW. Conditions may include limiting such work to the fish window established for the project, which typically corresponds with the period when most salmonids are least likely to be Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat present in in the project action area. Approved work windows for Green River and its tributaries typically extend from August 1 through August 31. Vibratory installation of sheet piles for the containment walls around the ground improvement areas will be conducted above the OHWM and in the dry (i.e., above the waterline at the time of construction). Based on monitoring of in -water noise levels associated with impact pile driving adjacent to or within the OHWM of a river, WSDOT (2014) has determined that driving in the dry is an effective means of minimizing the effects of sound in the water and protecting fish. Moreover, studies of sound levels in waterbodies adjacent to land -based pile driving activities have focused on impact pile driving, which generates substantially higher sound intensity levels than vibratory driving. For these reasons, elevated sound intensity levels from vibratory driving of sheet piles will not have any adverse effects on fish. Adult Green River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon are the only species life stage with an appreciable potential for exposure to effects from overwater work. Chinook salmon from the Puget Sound ESU typically migrate from marine habitats to freshwater spawning areas between June and mid -November and could therefore be present in the project action area when such work is underway. The likelihood of exposure to contaminants from overwater work is extremely low, however, because (1) the risk will be minimized through the proper application of appropriate BMPs, (2) the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration through the area, (3) reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area not known or expected to provide suitable spawning habitat for Chinook salmon, and (4) work will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions (including fish windows) specified in the HPA, likely limiting overwater work to late summer months when it is unlikely that high flows in the Green River will cause migrating adult salmon to seek low -velocity resting areas in the Black River. Other species and life history stages are extremely unlikely to be present in the project action area when overwater construction activities occur. Juvenile Chinook salmon could enter the project action area from January through June; adult steelhead could enter the project action area while they are migrating upstream between November and May; juvenile steelhead could enter the project action in April and May; and adult or subadult bull trout could enter the project action area from fall through late winter. All of these periods are outside of the anticipated late -summer window for overwater work. There is a slight potential for species and life history stages other than adult Chinook salmon to be present in the project action area when ground -disturbing construction work (other than overwater work) takes place. Site preparation in the ground improvement areas could begin as early as May, with ground - disturbing activities continuing through the spring and summer months. Juvenile Chinook salmon could enter the project action area during May or early June and adult or juvenile steelhead could enter the project action area during May. The potential for exposure to elevated levels of sediment or turbidity will be extremely low because (1) no ground -disturbing work will occur below the OHWM, (2) ground - disturbing work is expected to occur during the late spring and summer months, when water levels in the Black River are generally low and there is almost no possibility of high flows in the Green River causing adult or juvenile fish to seek low -velocity resting areas in the Black River, (3) work in the initial stages of construction (i.e., during the period when steelhead or juvenile Chinook might enter the project action area) will consist of activities (site preparation and riprap removal) with a very low potential of delivering sediments or pollutants to the Black River, and (4) the risk of exposure will be minimized through the proper application of appropriate BMPs in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). In addition, the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration through the area. The likelihood is further reduced for juvenile Chinook salmon because reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are not known or expected to provide suitable spawning habitat for Chinook salmon. No ground -disturbing activities will take place during the fall and late winter months, when adult or subadult bull trout could enter the project action area. Riparian Habitat Impacts Installation of the pedestrian bridge and construction of the approach trail segments are expected to result in minimal effects on the condition of riparian habitat along the Black River. The existing vegetated buffer of the Black River in the project action area is generally degraded, of limited width, and dominated by non-native herbaceous and shrubby species. ' Approximately 2,900 square feet within the Black River riparian buffer (1,100 square feet on the north bank and 1,800 square feet on the south bank) will be permanently or temporarily affected by ground improvement work. This includes the ground improvement areas themselves, as well as the areas that will be enclosed within the containment walls around the ground improvement areas. The work will entail the removal of existing vegetation (primarily Himalayan blackberry with a few scattered and small trees), removal of existing riprap, installation of containment walls, and wet soil mixing, after which riprap will be returned to the steep stream banks and the level areas at the top of the banks will be scarified and planted. It is assumed for this analysis that vegetation removal in all portions of the ground improvement areas, and in the areas directly underneath the pedestrian bridge, will be permanent. The remaining portions of the areas within the containment walls will be subject to temporary impacts. For bank stability, the existing riprap that is temporarily removed for wet soil mixing will be put back in place after construction work is complete. Disturbed areas that are not covered by impervious surfaces or riprap will be hydroseeded with native grasses. The portion of the north bank of the Black River that will be affected by temporary or permanent clearing is covered almost entirely by Himalayan blackberry. The existing vegetation on the north bank does not provide shade or LWD, nor does it contribute substantially to stream channel formation or maintenance, organic matter input, or other functions that support ESA -listed fish species. No trees are within the affected area. Vegetation disturbance on the north side of the river is not expected to result in any adverse effects on ESA -listed fish. The portion of the south bank of the Black River that will be affected by temporary or permanent clearing is covered primarily by Himalayan blackberry and other low -growing shrubs, but more trees are present than on the north bank. Clearing of the ground improvement area will entail the removal of a 12-inch dbh red alder and about 5 saplings (cottonwood, western redcedar, and Sitka spruce, all smaller than 4 inches dbh). The removal of trees from the riparian area will reduce the potential for future recruitment of LWD to the Black River, reducing the potential for the development of complex in -stream habitat features that could be used by ESA -listed fish species. The potential for adverse effects is minimal, however, because the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Black River does not support reproductive populations of Chinook salmon, steelhead, or bull trout. The effects of clearing will also be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long term, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. The riparian functions that will benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. It is also likely that new trees will be able to take root and start growing in the disturbed areas on the stream bank, as was evidently the case with the trees growing in the riprap there now. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or processes (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) will result from permanent project -related clearing and no substantial effects on stream habitat or fish resources are anticipated in the Black River. In addition, the project will comply with the requirements of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program, which will entail the implementation of measures to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Pedestrian Bridge Impacts All bridge components spanning the Black River will be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits issued for the project. Per WAC 220-660-030, the HPA provisions will be designed to ensure no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life. Compliance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits will be expected to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects resulting from the loss of in -stream habitat due to bridge construction. Any unavoidable impacts wi}1 be addressed through compensatory mitigation. Shade from overwater structures such as bridges can be a migration barrier for fish. Juvenile salmonids avoid dark, shaded areas under structures, resulting in loss of access to habitat, blockage of movement, and potentially increased exposure to predators. In addition, shade from overwater structures can provide hiding cover for some non-native species, such as smallmouth bass, that prey on native fish. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affected by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade -related effects. The bridge will be oriented on a north -south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The Black River is not considered to be an important migratory corridor for salmonids because the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the study area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. In addition, reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are unlikely to provide suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon or high -quality spawning or rearing habitat for steelhead. Moreover, the narrow footprint and north -south orientation of the bridge will further diminish the potential for the structure to cast shade that presents a migration barrier for any juvenile salmonids that may pass through the project action area. The potential Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat for the bridge to present a migration barrier to juvenile bull trout is negligible because bull trout are not known or expected to use habitats in the Black River within or upstream of the project action. All above -ground bridge elements will be situated upslope of the OHWM and'outside of the 100-year floodplain elevation. Therefore, the presence of the bridge will not affect the flood storage capacity of the Black River floodplain. Impervious Surface Impacts Management of runoff from Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, including the pedestrian bridge and approach trail segments, will comply with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2012). No inter -basin transfers of stormwater will occur (i.e., all stormwater will remain in the basin in which it originated). The new impervious surfaces will support only non -motorized traffic and will therefore be non -pollutant -generating. Metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other contaminants commonly associated with roadway runoff will not be generated by the pedestrian and bike trail, meaning the proposed project will have no discernable effect on water quality in the project action area. Therefore, this analysis considers only the potential for effects on stream flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface in the project action area. Construction of the pedestrian bridge and associated project features will add approximately 1,080 square feet (0.02 acre) of impervious surface within the project action area. No changes in flow regime, including peak flows and base flows of the Black River, are expected because the volume of runoff from the small amount of added impervious surface will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the Black River and the lower Green River. The anticipated increase in the 100-year peak runoff flow rate under developed conditions will be less than 0.1 cfs (Parametrix 2015). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. In addition, most runoff from the approach trail segments is expected to infiltrate within or be intercepted by vegetated buffers along the Black River, which are between 25 and 50 feet wide. Based on the above, the increased amount of impervious surface in the project action area is not expected to result in any appreciable effects on the hydrology of the Black River, including base flow and peak flow. Indirect Effects The possible introduction of excess sediment and pollutants into action area waterbodies during project construction could reduce the availability of prey items for ESA -listed fish species in the project action area. However, the potential for any such impacts will be avoided or minimized by the implementation of BMPs and the TESC plan in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). Any unavoidable impacts will occur only while and immediately after the ground -disturbing activities take place and are not expected to cause any long-term changes in foraging behavior or prey availability. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Construction of the pedestrian bridge on Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail will not cause any indirect effects associated with induced changes in land use, for the following reasons: • The project will not create any new roads, lanes, intersections, interchanges, or other facilities with the potential to alter access to nearby lands. • The project will not alter the level of service on existing roads in the project action area. • No building moratoria are in place that are contingent on the proposed project. • No land use changes are tied by permit condition to the proposed project. • No reasonably foreseeable actions or Land use changes will be caused by or result from the project. • No current development plans include scenarios for the planning area where land use differs based on "build" versus "no -build" outcomes related to the proposed project. • No land use changes are likely to occur at a different rate as a result of the proposed project. Conclusions and Effect Determinations We have determined that the proposed Lake to Sound —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge will have no effect on ESA -listed species for the following reasons: • No suitable habitat for ESA -listed terrestrial species is present within or near the project action area. • Appropriate BMPs will be employed to minimize or eliminate sediment and pollutant inputs to waterbodies during construction. • ESA -listed aquatic species are not expected to be present in the project action area when construction activities are underway; project construction activities will be timed and sequenced to avoid ground -disturbing activities in sensitive areas when migrating salmonids may be present. • No spawning habitat for ESA -listed aquatic species is present in the project action area, and the potential for water and substrates in the project action area to provide suitable rearing, foraging, or refuge habitat is extremely low, based on poor water quality; lack of LWD and other sources of instream cover; steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species; and the presence of the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area, which presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. • The Black River does not support reproductive populations of Chinook salmon. • Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by bull trout. • The vegetated buffer of the Black River in the project action area is generally degraded, of limited width, and dominated by non-native herbaceous and shrubby species. In addition, only a small portion (approximately 2,900 square feet) of the riparian buffer will be affected by ground - disturbing activities, and the effects of riparian vegetation loss will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation in the riparian area of the Black River. • The project will comply with the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program, which requires the implementation of measures to ensure no net loss of ecological function. • Shade from the pedestrian bridge is not expected to present a migration barrier for juvenile salmonids because the bridge will be narrow and well above the water's surface, and the bridge will be oriented on a north -south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat • Management of runoff from new impervious surfaces will comply with the requirements of Ecology's 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. • The volume of runoff from 0.02 acre of new impervious surface will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the Black River and the lower Green River. We have determined that the proposed Lake to Sound —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge will have no effect on designated or proposed critical habitat for ESA -listed species for the following reasons: • Designated critical habitat for bull trout is not present in the project action area. • Conditions favorable for spawning or rearing by Chinook salmon or steelhead are not present, and the presence of the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a significant barrier to migration, meaning the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead are essentially absent from the project action area. Table 2 provides a distinct statement of the overall effect of the project on each species and critical habitat considered in this analysis. Table 2. Effects Determinations for Species and Designated Critical Habitat Species Status Federal Jurisdiction Effect Determination Critical Habitat Effect Determination Chinook salmon Threatened NMFS No Effect No Effect (Puget Sound ESU) steelhead trout Threatened NMFS No Effect N/A1 (Puget Sound DPS) Bull trout Threatened USFWS No Effect No Effect Critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead has been proposed but not designated. Proposed steelhead critical habitat occurs in the project action area. Should critical habitat be designated before project completion, the project will have no effect on critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. We have further determined that the project will not adversely affect EFH for Pacific coast salmon, Pacific coast groundfish, or coastal pelagic species. A full EFH analysis is included as Appendix E. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Literature Cited Busby, P. J., et al. 1996. Status review of west: coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 281 pp. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volumes I — V. Publication Number 12-10-030. Prepared by Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. Olympia, Washington. August 2012. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303[d] list). Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Accessed February 3, 2015. Goetz, F.A., E. Jeans, and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore. Preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, WA. Grette, G.B., and E.O. Salo. 1986. The status of anadromous fishes of the Green/Duwamish River system. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, by Evans -Hamilton, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311 393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Kerwin, J. and T. S. Nelson. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island). Washington State Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2002. King County bull trout program: 2001 bull trout surveys, freshwater and marine nearshore. Prepared by Taylor Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. King County Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Literature review and recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, WA. King County. 2014b. Water Quality Index Report for Springbrook Creek (Station 317). http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/streamsdata/WQIReport.aspx?Locator=0317. King County. 2015a. Stream report for Springbrook Creek (Station 0317). Available at http://green2.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterresistreamsdata/watershedinfo.aspx. Accessed February 3, 2015. Lister, D.B. and H.S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1215-1224. Mongillo, P.E. 1993. The distribution and status of bull trout/Dolly Varden in Washington State, June 1992. Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division. Report No. 93-22. Olympia, Washington. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Factors contributing to the decline of Chinook salmon: an addendum to the 1996 west coast steelhead factors for decline report. Protect Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Preparing essential fish habitat assessments: a guide for federal action agencies. Available at http://www.westcoast. fi sheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish_habitat/efh_consultations_go.html. Parametrix. 2011. Technical Memorandum: Preliminary stormwater management plan, Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A. October 12, 2011. Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A. Final Technical Information Report: Drainage and Floodplain. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team. 2013..Identifying historical populations of steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment. Final Review Draft. 149 pp. Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group. 2002. Regional road maintenance Endangered Species Act (ESA) program guidelines. Developed by the Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group, Seattle, Washington. Available at http://www.kingcountv.gov/transportation/kcdot/Roads/Environment/RegionalRoadMaintenanceESA Guidelines.aspx. Ruggerone, G.T. and D.E. Weitkamp. 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook salmon research framework: Identifying key research questions about Chinook salmon life histories and habitat use in the Middle and Lower Green River, Duwamish Waterway, and marine nearshore areas. Report prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound salmon recovery plan. Adopted by National Marine Fisheries Service 19 January 2007. Volume I (plan) and Volume II (local watershed chapters). Available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steel head/recovery_pl anning_and_impl ementati on/puget_sound/puget_sound_chinook_recovery_plan.html Accessed July 2, 2013. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Bull trout final critical habitat justification: rationale for why habitat is essential, and documentation of occupancy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. September 2010. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SaSI). WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/sasi/. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015a. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed January 16, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015b. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available online at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2015. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Washington Natural Heritage Program geographic information system data set. Data current as of September 2014. Obtained July 30, 2015. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2014. Biological assessment preparation advanced training manual. Version 04-02-2014. Available online at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX A October 2011 No -effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Parametrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 411 108th AVENUE NE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5571 T. 425. 458. 6200 F. 425. 458. 6363 www.parametrix.com October 24, 2011 PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) Jason Rich King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements — Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King County is proposing to develop a 1.1-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non -motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non - motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal -aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA -listed species could occur within the action area: • Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) • Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 2 • Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Threatened) • Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Southern DPS (Threatened) • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (Threatened) • Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (Threatened) • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (Threatened) • Gray wolf (Canis lupus) (Endangered) • Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) (Threatened) • Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) [historic] (Threatened) Designated critical habitat occurring in or near the action area includes the following: • Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat • Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat USFWS identifies endangered, threatened, and proposed species that may be present in a project area based on the species that are known or expected to be present within the county or counties in which the project occurs. For most of the species on the list for King County (Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet), the project area —in a lowland, urban setting, with no roadless areas or old -growth forest nearby —does not fall within the species' current or historical range, does not contain suitable habitat, or both. No observations of any of these species have been documented within 10 miles of the project site (WDFW 201 la). The proposed project, therefore, has no potential to affect these species and they will not be addressed further in this analysis. Information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage database indicates that no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur within 1.5 miles of the project site (WDNR 2011). Suitable habitat for golden paintbrush (open grasslands in glacial outwash prairies) is not present at the project site. For these reasons, the proposed project has no potential to affect this species. NMFS recently listed the southern DPS of Pacific eulachon as threatened (75 FR 13012, March 18, 2010) and has proposed critical habitat for this DPS (76 FR 534, January 5, 2011). Because there are no suitable eulachon spawning rivers within at least 10 miles of the action area and no proposed critical habitat within 60 miles of the project, the project has no potential to affect this species. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located adjacent to the Black River within the cities of Renton and Tukwila, King County, Washington in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). The project area is located within the lower Green River basin and the Black River sub -basin (Watershed Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] Stream Number 09-004). The basin has a sixth -field hydrologic unit code (HUC) designation of 171100130305. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 3 The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges oriented north -south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks is located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor, with an east -west bearing. These tracks tie into the north - south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The eastern terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three- quarters of the proposed trail alignment, from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road (approximately 4,300 linear feet), follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The gravel maintenance road is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low -growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using the existing Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. Land use in the area is a mix of parkland and commercial/industrial sites. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. Interstate 405 is located less than 1 mile south of the site. The project alignment is bisected by both Monster Road, a main arterial within the City of Renton, and the railroad bridges. Waterbodies potentially affected by the project include the Green and Black Rivers. The project alignment meets the Green River at about river mile (RM) 11.0 on the right bank of the river and parallels the lower 1,500 feet of the Black River (RM 0.0 to 0.3). Both streams are located within the Green/Duwamish River Watershed, within WRIA 9. The Duwamish River is defined as the portion of the Green/Duwamish River system downstream from the confluence of the Black River (River Mile [RM] 11.0) to Elliott Bay (RM 0.0), while the Green River extends upstream from the Black River. For the purpose of this report, the term `Duwamish River' pertains to the first 11 miles of the river system, while the term `Green River' pertains both to the portion of river above RM 11.0 and to the river system as a whole. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 4 The Lower Green River basin begins at the Auburn Narrows (RM 31) and continues to just downstream of the confluence with the Black River in Tukwila (RM 11). The lower Green River basin is composed of two areas that are split by the Black River basin to the north and the Mill Creek basin to the south.. It is mostly on the urban side of the urban growth boundary and contains portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, and SeaTac. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural, as well as some major highways, including interstate 5. There are extensive areas of office/commercial and multi -family residential development. This area has developed rapidly over the past 20 years. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non -motorized transportation corridor and multi -use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW and the Green River Trail in the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Segment A will provide non -motorized access to recreation and employment centers and complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards will safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1- foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The construction schedule for the project has not been determined, but the project will include: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft -surface (gravel) shoulders • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 2 acres outside the proposed trail footprint) • Creating non -motorized improvements on the east side of the Monster Road Bridge over the Black River • Installing a pedestrian -actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Building one small retaining wall, 2 to 3 feet tall and no more than 200 feet long • Constructing up to two 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and potentially one north of Fort Dent Park) • Installing one culvert • Installing split -rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife The proposed project will not add any pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS) to the project area. For this reason, no stormwater treatment is required per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Similarly, flow control facility requirements are waived because the anticipated increase in the 100-year peak runoff flow rate under developed conditions does not exceed 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) in each of the four threshold drainage areas that were identified within the project boundaries (Parametrix 2011). The trail has been designed to King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 5 direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The use of permeable asphalt is not proposed at this time. Construction machinery that will be used includes typical equipment such as trucks, backhoes, compressors, and pumps. Potential best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control include, but are not limited to, placement of silt barriers, stormwater drain inserts, or straw bales/matting, as necessary. All erosion control measures will be inspected regularly to ensure adequacy and assess maintenance needs. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan will be implemented to ensure that sediment -laden water does not enter any waterbody or drainage system. During the construction period, TESC measures will be implemented and maintained. Both a spill prevention control and countermeasures (SPCC) plan and a TESC plan will be closely followed during construction activities. ACTION AREA The action area for the proposed project is defined as the immediate construction area and all terrestrial habitat within 0.25 mile, as well as waters and aquatic habitat within the Green and Black Rivers, immediately adjacent to the trail alignment extending to 300 feet downstream of the alignment (Figure 1). We believe this is a conservative estimate of the maximum extent of terrestrial construction noise and of possible water quality effects (turbidity) on fish species. HABITAT CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE OF PROPOSED OR LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT A Parametrix biologist conducted a field reconnaissance on February 1, 2011. This site visit verified instream and riparian habitat conditions within the two project area streams. Both streams are highly urbanized, although riparian conditions within the Black River Riparian Forest, south of the trail alignment, are generally good. See attachments for photos of habitat conditions within the action area. The eastern three-quarters of the trail alignment (approximately 4,300 linear feet, from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road) follows an existing, maintained gravel maintenance road. This portion parallels the BNSF railroad tracks and is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low -growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Traveling west from Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces for approximately 150 feet. The next 650-foot stretch follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges. The westernmost 600 feet of the trail alignment is on maintained lawns within Fort Dent Park. Instream habitat of the Black River within the project area is dominated by run -type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths of greater than 6 feet. At the time of the site visit (February 2011), the wetted width ranged between approximately 30 and 40 feet and no pools or riffles were observed. Streambed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a 50-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. Underneath the Monster Road Bridge, both streambanks are 100 percent armored with riprap, from the edge of the water to the bridge deck. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 6 No large woody debris (LWD) was observed in the action area, and the presence of the Black River pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Within the action area, the Black River would probably be used for salmonid migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is somewhat limited. The stream buffers in the Black River within the project area are generally degraded, of limited widths, and composed of herbaceous, shrub, and nonnative species. Downstream of Monster Road Bridge the stream buffer widths vary between 50 and 100 feet on the north side of the river to about 75 to 150 feet on the south side. The entire trail alignment west of Monster Road is within the regulatory buffers identified by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila on the south side of the Black River; approximately the westernmost 200 feet of the alignment is within the buffer for the Green River. Upstream of the bridge, the vegetated buffer widths average from 100 to 150 feet on both sides of the Black River. Only the westernmost 700 feet of the trail alignment east of Monster Road is within the buffer on the north side of the Black River. The vegetated buffer consists of lightly forested and herbaceous plant communities, although the forested zone is restricted to within 50 feet of the river. Vegetation includes red alder (Alnus rubra), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). Where the trail alignment is within 200 feet of the Black River upstream of Monster Road, riparian vegetation is sparse, with only a few scattered deciduous trees. Nonnative shrub vegetation is dominant; the area between the trail alignment and the river is covered almost entirely by Himalayan blackberry. The vegetation in this area is not adequate to support a properly functioning riparian zone (e.g., stream shading, LWD recruitment, leaf litter input, stream channel formation and maintenance). Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor throughout the project area is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or LWD recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is the gravel surface of the existing maintenance road. Where the existing surface does not consist of gravel, a worn dirt trail exists and is largely free of trees and shrubs that would support riparian functions. WDFW (2011 a, b) data indicate that Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout all have documented presence within the Black River, within the action area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area; recent as well as historical records indicate that Chinook do not use this area for spawning or rearing (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975). However, small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River pump station (the pump station blocks downstream passage of adult salmon). In the fall of 1997, adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert, in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area (WSCC 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River, and there have been no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 1998). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 7 this species (Harza 1995). Small numbers of bull trout have been documented using the Duwamish River downstream of the confluence of the Green and Black rivers (WSCC 2000). Bull trout are considered possible but not likely present in the Green River upstream of that point. The western terminus of the trail alignment is approximately 50 feet from the Green River and approximately 200 feet upstream of the Green/Black confluence. The lower Green River and the majority of the Black River, including the reaches within the action area, have been designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (NMFS 2005). Much of the length of the mainstem Duwamish/Green River (including a small portion of the action area) has also been designated as critical habitat for bull trout (USFWS 2010), although this designation does not include the Black River. Critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS has not been proposed or designated at this time, but based on steelhead distribution and life history requirements, designated critical habitat for steelhead in the future would likely include those reaches of the Black and Green Rivers designated as Chinook salmon critical habitat. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS Impervious surfaces: Upon the completion of trail construction, the 16-foot-wide trail corridor will generally consist of 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders, all of which is considered impervious surface. This amounts to 2.1 acres of impervious surface over the 1.1-mile length of the trail, which is an increase of 0.8 acre from current conditions (the existing hardened gravel surfaces in the trail corridor cover approximately 1.3 acres). Construction of the two pull-out rest areas will result in an additional 400 square feet (0.01 acre) of impervious surface. Stream buffer impacts: After trail construction is complete, approximately 23,500 square feet (0.54 acre) of land area within stream buffers will consist of paved or graveled surfaces. Under current conditions, approximately 18,000 square feet (0.40 acre) of this area consists of pavement, gravel, or other impervious surfaces. Trail construction, therefore, would result in a net increase of approximately 5,600 square feet (0.13 acre) in the amount of impervious surface within stream buffers. Trail construction near the western trail terminus will result in the removal of two Douglas -fir trees (14 inches and 19 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) approximately 50 feet from the Green River and three Douglas -fir trees (19 to 24 inches dbh) approximately 100 feet from the Black River. Two ornamental deciduous trees (5 and 7 inches dbh) within 80 feet of the Black River will also be removed. Between the railroad tracks and Monster Road, two large cottonwood trees (30 and 36 inches dbh) approximately 40 feet from the Black River will be removed. Four or five small (6 to 9 inches dbh) cottonwood trees will also be removed in this area. Between two and five deciduous trees may be removed near the eastern trail terminus; all of these are more than 500 feet from any streams. Temporary disturbance: Approximately 6,565 square feet (0.15 acre) of vegetation will be temporarily disturbed by construction activities, largely within 2 feet of the project footprint. EFFECTS ANALYSIS Impervious surfaces: No changes in the water quality of project area streams will result, because no new PGIS will be created. No dissolved metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), or other contaminants commonly associated with roadway runoff will be generated on the pedestrian and bike trail. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 8 No changes in flow regime are expected, including peak flows and base flows of the Black River or Green River, because the amount of flow generated from the small amount of added impervious surface (0.8 acre) will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the lower Black and Green Rivers. The mean monthly flow rate in the lower Duwamish River immediately downstream of the confluence of the Black and Green Rivers varies from 400 cfs in August to 2,600 cfs in January. Peak flows are substantially higher. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. Proposed changes in land cover are expected to increase 100- year peak flows by less than 0.1 cfs (Parametrix 2011). In addition, the vegetated buffers between the trail and the Black and Green Rivers will allow ample opportunity for stormwater runoff to be infiltrated or intercepted before entering the waterbodies. Most of the trail alignment (0.7 mile of the total 1.1-mile length) is between 200 feet and 1,000 feet from the Black River, separated from the waterbody by the wide, flat, densely vegetated Black River Riparian Forest. All stormwater from this portion of the trail will be infiltrated or intercepted before it reaches the water. Even where the trail is less than 200 feet from the Green River or Black River, most stormwater is expected to infiltrate within or be intercepted by vegetated buffers that are between 25 and 50 feet wide. No inter -basin transfers of stormwater will occur (i.e., all stormwater will remain in the basin in which it originates). For the reasons identified above, the project will have no impact on the hydrology or water quality of the Black River or the Green River. Stream buffer impacts: The overall quality of the riparian buffer areas that will be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Of 23,500 square feet of the proposed trail alignment that falls within regulatory stream buffers, only about 5,600 square feet consists of natural or other pervious surfaces —primarily grass or nonnative herbaceous and shrub species. The existing buffer functions of the areas within the project footprint are somewhat degraded, compared to fully forested conditions. Where it falls within stream buffers, the trail alignment is generally between 25 and 50 feet from the project area streams. The low -growing vegetation in the project footprint does not provide shade or LWD, nor does it contribute substantially to stream channel formation or maintenance, organic matter input, or other functions that support ESA -listed fish species. Several of the trees in the trail alignment west of Monster Road have the potential to provide shade, LWD, and other riparian functions for the Black River. Removal of these trees could reduce the capacity of the riparian area to contribute to habitat conditions required by Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The potential for adverse effects is negligible, however, because the Black River does not support reproductive populations of any of these species. In addition, the coniferous trees are more than 50 feet from the stream on relatively flat slopes and, therefore, have little potential to contribute shade or LWD. Lastly, the areas from which the trees will be removed are relatively densely wooded, compared to most portions of the trail alignment; numerous other trees will persist and contribute to riparian functions in those areas after project construction is complete. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, therefore, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; water temperature maintenance) or processes (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 9 and maintenance) is expected to result from project -related clearing and no effects on stream habitat or fish resources in the project area streams are anticipated. Furthermore, an equivalent or greater area of riparian buffer will be enhanced as part of the project mitigation activities. Locations for buffer mitigation planting have not yet been established. The preferred option for buffer mitigation is on -site planting with native trees and shrubs in areas along the project alignment between the proposed trail and the Black and Green Rivers. All removal of trees from stream buffers will occur within the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, which requires a Tree Clearing Permit for such activities. Under the terms of this permit, all trees larger than 4 inches diameter that are removed will be replaced with one or more new trees, based on the replacement ratios in the Tukwila Municipal Code. All understory vegetation within the root zone of protected trees will either be retained or removed by methods that do not damage the tree, and then replaced with suitable vegetation. Temporary disturbance: Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to project area streams could increase turbidity and total suspended solids levels. However, no earthwork or riparian clearing will occur within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Green or Black River, and in most cases the closest construction distance to the rivers will be greater than 40 feet. Furthermore, any such effects will be avoided through the development and implementation of BMPs, including TESC and SPCC plans. Any overwater work will be confined to the existing Monster Road Bridge surface. All work in this area will be conducted in the dry season and the proper application of BMPs will ensure no concrete, falling material, or dust enters project waters. Temporarily cleared areas will be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species after construction activities are complete, and no effects on listed species will occur. Impact minimization and mitigation: Key project elements and mitigation measures to reduce and avoid impacts of the project are as follows: • The streams in the action area have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible and no permanent filling of streams is anticipated. • A high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing riparian buffer impacts. • The plan includes the use of retaining walls to narrow the trail footprint in the vicinity of some riparian buffers. • Earthwork and clearing near streams will be limited to the dry season to reduce the potential for sediment runoff. • Construction of the trail will occur on an existing gravel maintenance road to minimize impacts to functioning riparian buffers. • Where feasible, the trail will be widened on the north side of the existing corridor to minimize impacts to riparian buffers and wildlife habitat. No direct or indirect effects to forage species are expected within or downstream of the action area, and the project will neither increase traffic capacity nor have any measurable effect on human population growth in the area. For these reasons, the project is not expected to have any indirect effects on ESA -listed species. Segment A is intended to become part of a larger planned Lake to Sound trail system connecting to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. The improvement of the larger trail system, therefore, is King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 10 considered an interrelated activity under ESA, because the activity is related, but not dependent upon, completion of the larger Lake to Sound Trail system (i.e., Segment A has independent utility as a local trail). A second segment of the trail, Segment B, located adjacent to Des Moines Memorial Drive in the cities of SeaTac and Burien, is currently funded for design and is currently undergoing a separate ESA consultation. The other segments of the trail are not funded. Based on the location of the proposed trail, local land use codes, critical areas ordinances, and state and federal regulations, these interrelated activities are not expected to affect listed species. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON PROPOSED OR LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT Listed or proposed species will not be susceptible to impacts related to project activities for the reasons summarized in Table 1 and in the bulleted statements below. Therefore, we have determined that this project will have no effect on all species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated critical habitats for these species. Table 1 identifies the listed or proposed species that may occur in the project vicinity and summarizes the nearest known occurrences, effect determination, and the rationale for the determination for each species. Table 1. Effect Determinations and Rationale — Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Listed Species/ Jurisdictional Nearest Suitable Effect Critical Habitat Agency Habitat Determination Effect Determination Rationale Chinook salmon NMFS Black River No Effect See below (25 feet) Chinook salmon critical habitat NMFS Black River No Effect See below (25 feet) Steelhead trout NMFS Black River No Effect See below (25 feet) Bull trout USFWS Green River No Effect See below (50 feet) Bull trout critical habitat USFWS Green River No Effect See below (50 feet) Eulachon NMFS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Marbled murrelet USFWS Marine waters No Effect No suitable habitat present (> 5 miles) Northern spotted owl USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Canada lynx USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Gray wolf USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Grizzly bear USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Golden paintbrush USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present The proposed project will have no effect on bull trout, Chinook salmon, or Puget Sound steelhead for the following reasons: • The project will not result in additional PGIS within the action area and there will be no increase in pollutant loading, so no negative effects to ESA -listed fish will result. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 11 • No alteration of peak flows or base flows in project area streams will result from the increase in impervious surface associated with trail construction because the amount of flow generated from the added impervious surface (0.8 acre) will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the lower Black and Green Rivers, and the existing riparian buffers will effectively infiltrate or intercept the small amount of runoff generated from these surfaces. • No inwater or overwater work will occur and appropriate BMPs will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and the chance of sediments entering action area waterbodies. As part of this effort, TESC and SPCC plans will be prepared and implemented. Based on the project location (relative distance to designated critical habitat) and the nature and scope of project activities as discussed above, the project will have no effect upon designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon or bull trout. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) ANALYSIS The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act) includes a mandate that NMFS must identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed commercially harvestable fish, and federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fishes, and coastal pelagic fisheries. Of the federally managed commercial habitat species, the Green and Black Rivers contain EFH for Pacific salmon, such as Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. However, for the reasons listed above, the project will have no deleterious effects on the physical, chemical, or biological components of these or other fish -bearing waterbodies. Therefore, the project will have no effect on Pacific salmon EFH. No EFH for groundfish or coastal pelagic species occurs within or adjacent to the action area.. Based on these findings, the project will not adversely affect EFH. CONCLUSION This assessment satisfies FHWA's responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the ESA and the Magnuson -Stevens Act at this time. We are sending you this copy of our assessment for your files. We will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared to reevaluate potential project impacts if necessary. Please call me at 425-458-6200 if you require additional information or have any questions about this project. Sincerely, Parametrix Mike Hall Scientist Attachments: Figure 1 - Project Vicinity and Action Area Map USFWS King County Species List NMFS Species List Project Area Photographs King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 12 REFERENCES Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 13 evolutionarily significant units of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (O. mykiss) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; Final Rule. September 2, 2005. Federal Register 70(170):52630-52858. Parametrix. 2011. Technical Memorandum: Preliminary stormwater management plan, Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A. October 12, 2011. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. October 18, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 75(200):63898-64070. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington State salmonid stock inventory. Appendix: Bull trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 437 pp. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011a. Priority Habitats and Species Report for the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A project vicinity. Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011b. Salmonscape database. Available at: <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. Accessed on May 2, 2011. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2011. List of surveyed land sections in Washington identified by the Natural Heritage Program as reported to contain Natural Heritage Features. Available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/HowTo/ConservationRestoration/Pages/amp nh data instructio ns.aspx. Williams et al. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island), Olympia, Washington. December 2000. ATTACHMENTS MS env sayaeN 1, WSDOT, Aerials Express 2009 , City of Renton, WDF City Boundary O Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A 0 0 o LL mIU LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN KING COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised August 1, 2011) LISTED Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) — Coastal -Puget Sound DPS Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed plant species include: 1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 1. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennant!) — West Coast DPS North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) — contiguous U.S. DPS Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) [historic] Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belieri) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata) Olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus cooper!) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truer) Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremeri) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus (white -top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Species' Current Endangered ESA Listing Actions Listing Status` 1 Snake River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus 2 —_ Ozette Lake nerka) 3 Baker River Not Warranted 4 Okanogan River Not Warranted 5 Lake Wenatchee Not Warranted , Quinalt Lake Not Warranted 7 Lake Pleasant Not Warranted 8 Sacramento River Winter -run 9 Columbia River Spring -run Chinook Salmon __Upper -- -- - - Snake River Spring/Summer-run (O. ishaaylscha) 10 11 Snake River Fall -run 12 Piet Sound 13 _ — Lower Columbia River 14 Upper Willamette River 15 Central Valley Spring -run 16 California Coastal 17 Central Valley Fall and Late Fall run Species ofConcern 18 Upper Klamath -Trinity Rivers Nor Warranted 19 Oregon Coast Nor Warranted 20 Washington Coast Not Warranted 21 Middle Columbia River spring -run Not Warranted 22 Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run Not Warranted 23 Souther Oregon and Northern California Coast Not Warranted 24 Deschutes River summer/fall-run Not Warranted 25 Central Califomia Coast Coho Salmon 26 Southern OregonlNorthem California _ Lower Columbia River (O. kisvlch) 27 . Critical habitat 28 Oregon Coast 29 Southwest Washington Undetermined 30 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia S.ecieso Concern - 31 Olympic Peninsula Not Warranted Chum Salmon 32 Hood Canal Summer -run Columbia River (O. keta) 33 34 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Not Warranted 35 Pacific Coast Not Warranted 36 Southern Califomia Steelhead 37 Upper Columbia River (O. mykiss) 38 Central Califomia Coast 39 South Central Califomia Coast 40 Snake River Basin 41 Lower Columbia River _ 42 Califomia Central Valley 43 Upper Willamette River 44 Middle Columbia River 45 Northern Califomia 46 Oregon Coast Species of Concern 47 Southwest Washington Not Warranted 48 Oly pic Peninsula Not Warranted 49 Puget Sound • Critical habitat 50 Klamath Mountains Province Not Warranted Pink Salmon (O. gorhnec.hal 51 Es en -year ___ . _.. \e,1 Ir'orronrnl _- Odd -year i :A}1 II'urrurrd 1 The ESA defines a "species" to include any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife. For Pacific salmon, NOAA Fisheries Service considers an evolutionarily significant unit, or "ESU," a "species" under the ESA. For Pacific steelhead, NOAA Fisheries Service has delineated distinct population segments (DPSs) for consideration as "species" under the ESA. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Photograph 1. View of left bank riparian vegetation along the Black River, looking east from Fort Dent Park. Note presence of shrub vegetation and scattered small trees. Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species are also present. Photograph 2. View of proposed trail alignment, looking east from near the Green River Trail. Note degraded understory riparian conditions and the lack of vegetated ground cover. The trees will be maintained in place, where feasible. No Effects Letter / ,ein .1.,//A /nT7/1/1r1 Lake to Sound Trail — SegmentA Photograph 3. View of riparian conditions on right bank of Black River, looking south from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. Note the presence of non-native vegetation and scarcity of mature trees. Photograph 4. View of existing gravel trail/proposed trail alignment, looking east from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. The Black River is on the right side of the photo and the Black River Pump station is in the background. No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX B Bridge Plan and Elevation and Proposed Ground Improvement Areas AVMs TVM A -LINE PROFILE ���—i13AM )I3Y19 NIW b b ELEVATION z 1 O_ f m Q 7 U1 z 30 W O Wce ▪ 0 e r m0 z BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION I�� Se 0 9. 6 3 l� r-- II N 1 m—m---bum OO+L L cr OO COMMICINVI Z _5 RIVER TRAIL TO NACRES AVE SW 5 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX C Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Bridge Design: • A prefabricated pedestrian bridge will be used to reduce the risk of construction debris entering the river. • The waterward face of all bridge elements that may come in contact with waters of the state will be landward of the OHWM. • All above -ground portions of the bridge foundations, as well as the entire bridge itself, will be located upslope of the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. • There will be at least 3 feet of clearance between the bottom of the bridge structure and the elevation of the 100-year peak flow. • There will be no permanent light fixtures on the bridge. • To maximize the amount of light under the bridge, the bridge was designed to be as far above the water's surface as possible, within the constraints imposed by avoidance of wetland impacts and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bridge Installation: • Contractors will be instructed to minimize damage to river banks when placing the bridge structure. • Biotechnical slope protection (i.e., using plants and plant materials for erosion control) outside the bridge shadow will be encouraged where feasible. Equipment Use: • Equipment use will be confined to specific access and work corridors to protect riparian, wetland, and aquatic vegetation. • In stream buffers and wetland buffers, when wet or muddy conditions exist, equipment that reduces ground pressure will be used whenever feasible. • Equipment will be checked daily for leaks; any required repairs will be completed in an upland location before the equipment is used in or near the water. Construction Materials: • Construction and deconstruction material will be stored in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment - laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. • Construction materials will not be stockpiled waterward of the OHWM unless no other feasible location exists and it is explicitly authorized by WDFW and the City of Renton. • Only clean, suitable material will be used as fill. • To prevent leaching, forms will be constructed to contain any wet concrete. Impervious material will be placed over any exposed wet concrete that has the potential to come in contact with waters of the state. Forms and impervious materials will remain in place until the concrete is cured. • Wood treated with oil -type preservatives (e.g., creosote, pentachlorophenol) will not be used in any portions of structures that may come in contact with the water of the Black River. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Construction -related Sediment, Erosion, and Pollution Containment: • Sediment control measures and BMPs (e.g., sheet piles, sediment fences, erosion control blankets, hay bales, coir logs, storm drain inlet filters, jute matting, mulch application) will be installed before the initiation of construction activities that may increase the erosion potential or act as a sediment source. All erosion control measures will be inspected regularly to ensure adequacy and assess maintenance needs. A TESC plan will be implemented to ensure that sediment -laden water does not enter any waterbody or drainage system. During the construction period, TESC measures will be implemented and maintained. Both the TESC plan and a spill prevention control and countermeasures (SPCC) plan will be closely followed during construction activities. • All ground -disturbing work will be conducted above the surface elevation of the water in the Black River at the time of construction. • All ground improvement areas will be above the OHWM, and the drilling equipment used for wet soil mixing will remain upslope of the OHWM at all times. • Project -related contaminants, such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or other toxic or harmful materials, will be prevented from entering or leaching into waters of the state. For example, when the concrete deck is being added to the bridge, edge containment will be employed to ensure that no concrete enters the river below. • Excess slurry and spoils will be delivered to an approved upland disposal site, such as a gravel pit, for backfilling or reprocessing. • Upland sources of erosion, such as construction access roads, will be contained using erosion control and sediment detention measures. • No ground -disturbing activities will take place near the OHWM of any waterbodies in the project action area during rain events or when sufficient water is present to allow hydrologic connectivity with downstream waters. • Waste material from the project, such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt, or overburden, will be deposited in an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater. • All trash from the project will be deposited at an appropriate upland location. General • Areas for equipment storage, vehicle storage, fueling, servicing, and hazardous material storage will be established in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. • The contractor will limit site work to daylight hours and comply with local permit restrictions. • Trees close to the trail will be limbed rather than removed where practicable. • Any straw used for erosion and sediment control will certified as free of noxious weeds and their seeds. • The transport and introduction of aquatic invasive species will be prevented by thoroughly cleaning vessels, equipment, boots, waders, and other gear before entering or removing the gear from the job site. • There will be no change in the amount of fill within the 100-year floodplain, or below the OHWM. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX D Species Lists from NMFS and USFWS NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTNG SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERS 111P)' NOAA.'::7-7.1V,--Z west Coast Region NATIONAL OCEAN:C AND ATMOSPHERIC A..DM'NISTRATION West Coast Region Home About Us Fish Passage Habitat Protected Species Fisheries Hatcheries Resources Permits & Authorizations Publications Education & Outreach Maps & Data Recent Stories Newsroom NOAA Affiliates How do I? • Contact the West Coast Region • Leam more about ESA Section 7 consultations • Learn more about the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund • Log into my IFQ account • Find a biological opinion • Report a stranded or entangled marine mammal • Report a violation • Find grant opportunities West Coast Region Home » Salmon & Steelhead » Recovery Planning » Puget Sound Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Domain The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Domain is located in the northwestern corner of Washington State. It includes several large river systems flowing from the western slopes of the Cascade mountains, multiple estuaries, the San Juan Islands, Hood Canal, and a northern portion of the Olympic Peninsula. This domain has three listed species of salmon and steelhead: Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer -run Chum, Puget Sound steelhead. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region manages recovery planning and implementation for this region through its Oregon & Washington Coastal Area Office. For more information, please contact: Elizabeth Babcock, Puget Sound Recovery Coordinator, 206.526.4505 t4. Recovery Plans Puget Sound Chinook Overview of Recovery Efforts Recovery Plan Population Trends • Salmon Population Trend Summaries • Salmon Population Summary Database • 5-Year Salmon Status Review).. 1.4MB Hood Canal Summer -run Chum Overview of Recovery Efforts Recovery Plan Population Trends • Salmon Population Trend Summaries • Salmon Population Summary Database • 5-Year Salmon Status Review}. tams Puget Sound Steelhead Current Recovery Planning Efforts Recovery Outline /L 5.3MB Population Trends • Salmon Population Summary Database • 6-Year Salmon Status Review J., 1.4MB Recovery Information About Recovery Planning & Implementation in Puget Sound 2011 Implementation Status Assessment Final Report • Appendix A to Final Report Partners Puget Sound Action Plan Technical Recovery Team Publications Get Involved West Coast Region Comment on Proposed Rules Grants Jobs Feedback Locate NOAA Staff About Us NOAA Fisheries Service Fisheries Home Privacy Poly Information Quality Disclaimer About Us U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge IPaC Trust Resource Report Generated July 30, 20?5 11:41 AM MDT IPaC Trust Resource Report US Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resource Report 2EQSN-2BLMR-AJ7 D2-SD7TE-4YZ4BM Project Description NAME Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge PROJECT CODE 2EQSN-2BLMR-AJ7D2-SD7TE-4YZ4BM LOCATION King County, Washington DESCRIPTION No description provided U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information Species in this report are managed by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 LU t Iuia WI .DLISC IPaC Trust Resource Report 2EQSN-2BLMR-AJ7D2-SD7TE-4YZ4BM Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the Endangered Species Program and should be considered as part of an effect analysis for this project. This unofficial species list is for informational purposes only and does not fulfill the requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which states that Federal agencies are required to "request of the Secretary of Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action.'" This requirement applies to projects which are conducted, permitted or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can be obtained by returning to this project on the IPaC website and requesting an Official Species List from the regulatory documents section. Birds Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08C Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOB3 Yellow -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus CRITICAL HABITAT There is proposed critical habitat designated for this species. https://ecos.fws. gov/speciesProfi le/profile/speciesP rofile. action?spcode=B06R tI,rt;,1 ,,,, Fishes Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus r+ CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfi le.action?spcode=E065 Flowering Plants Golden Paintbrush Castilleja levisecta CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos. fws. gov/speciesProfi le/profile/speciesProfile. action?spcode=Q26U IPaC Trust Resource Report 2EQSN-2BLMR-AJ7D2-SD7TE-4YZ4BM Mammals Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. https://ecos.fws. gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfi le. action?spcode=A073 Gray Wolf Canis lupus CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Proposed Endangered Critical Habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) within the project area must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. Bull Trout Critical Habitat Final designated https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/soeciesProfile.action?spcode=E065#crithab Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat Final designated https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06D#crithab Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX E Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Action Agency: FHWA (in collaboration with WSDOT, King County, and the Cities of Renton and Tukwila) Project Name: Lake to Sound Trail Pedestrian Bridge, Renton, WA Background The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action(s) "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally -managed fisheries species within the proposed action area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. EFH has been defined for the purposes of the Magnuson -Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 2004). NMFS has further added the following interpretations to clarify this definition: • "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate; • "Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; • "Necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; • "Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers the full life cycle of a species (NMFS 2004); and • "Adverse effect" means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH; such impacts can include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site -specific, or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has designated EFH for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery, the coastal pelagic species fishery, and the Pacific coast salmon fishery. The Green River tributaries in the project action area contain EFH for Pacific coast salmon. No marine habitats are present in the action area; therefore, EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species is not addressed in this assessment. The EFH designation for the Pacific coast salmon fishery includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other waterbodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above impassable barriers. The Pacific coast salmon management unit includes September 2015 E-1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. Chinook and coho salmon have been documented in areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action. The quality of water and substrates in the Black River as fish habitat is low. Water quality is generally poor, characterized by low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high temperatures, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity, and nutrients. Streambed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. Mobility and survival of juveniles and adults are impeded by the lack of LWD and other sources of instream cover, as well as steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species. The Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action involves the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Black River, as part of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. The proposed action is described in greater detail in Section 1.2, Project Description. Potential Adverse Effects of Proposed Project The potential effects of the proposed project on fish habitat are described in Section 4, Effects of the Action. Following is a brief overview of potential adverse effects identified in that discussion. • Construction activities above or adjacent to waterbodies, clearing, grading, and bridge construction, have the potential to introduce sediment and contaminants into those aquatic resources. However, this possibility will be minimized because no earthwork or riparian clearing will occur below the OHWM of the Black River. In addition, BMPs will be implemented during project construction in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002), to reduce the potential for the introduction of sediment or contaminants into waterbodies in the action area. • Temporary or permanent impacts to riparian habitat adjacent to waterbodies in the action area are not expected to adversely affect fish habitat quality, based on (1) the absence of forested riparian habitat in the areas where temporary disturbance will occur, (2) the generally degraded condition of the riparian buffer of the Black River in the project action area, (3) plans to restore temporarily cleared areas to pre -construction conditions after construction activities are complete, including replanting or seeding with native species, and (4) compensatory mitigation for any reductions in the overall ecological functions of any affected riparian buffers, wetlands, and wetland buffers. • Shade from the pedestrian bridge is not expected to present a migration barrier for juvenile salmonids because (1) most of the bridge surface will consist of grated decking that will allow sunlight to reach the water's surface and (2) the bridge will be oriented on a north - south axis. In addition, areas directly under the new pedestrian bridge, where there is adequate height between the bridge and the ground level, will be replanted with native small shrubs and herbaceous plants. September 2015 E-2 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA -listed Species and Critical Habitat Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures Strict adherence to permit timing restrictions and BMPs specified in Section 1.3, Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures, will protect fish -bearing waters within and downstream of the project action area from water quality effects during and after project construction. Conclusions The project will not result in any long-term adverse modifications to waters or substrates that support spawning, migration, or rearing by Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the action area. As such, project construction or operation will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects upon Pacific coast salmon EFH. No EFH for Pacific coast groundfish or coastal pelagic species occurs within or adjacent to the action area. Based on these findings, the project will not adversely affect EFH for Pacific coast salmon, Pacific coast groundfish, or coastal pelagic species. September 2015 E-3 Community bevelopment Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for King County King County April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com Anril i ssa_1 )i_nQa CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 1.2 PROJECT FEATURES 1-1 1.3 PROJECT AREA AND SETTING 1-5 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1-6 2. METHODOLOGY 2-1 2.1 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 2-1 2.2 STUDIES AND COORDINATION 2-1 2.2.1 Review of Existing Information 2-1 2.2.2 Field Investigation 2-2 2.2.3 Regulations 2-5 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1 STUDY AREA 3-1 3.2 LAND COVER TYPES IN THE STUDY AREA 3-1 3.2.1 Riparian -Wetland 3-2 3.2.2 Herbaceous Wetland 3-5 3.2.3 Urban 3-5 3.2.4 Open Water 3-5 3.3 WILDLIFE SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA 3-6 3.4 SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA 3-6 3.4.1 Bald Eagle 3-8 3.4.2 Great Blue Heron 3-9 3.4.3 Western Toad 3-12 3.4.4 Peregrine Falcon 3-12 3.4.5 Pileated Woodpecker 3-12 3.4.6 Townsend's Big -eared Bat 3-12 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-i 4.1 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 4-1 4.1.1 Vegetation 4-1 4.1.2 Wildlife 4-3 4.1.3 Special -status Species 4-3 4.2 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS 4-10 nnril 1111C CCA_1C91J14A Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 5. MITIGATION 5-1 5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 5-1 5.2 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY EFFECTS 5-2 5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 5-2 6. REFERENCES 6-1 UST OF FIGURES 1-1 Vicinity Map 1-3 2-1 Mapped Sensitive Areas and Habitat 2-3 3-1 Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Base Map 3-3 4-1 Year-round and Seasonal Buffers for the Black River Heron Nesting Colony 4-7 LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Land Cover in the Wildlife and Vegetation Study Area for the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Construction Project 3-2 3-2 Special -status Species Documented or Expected to Occur in the Study Area 3-8 APPENDICES A Bird Species Likely to Occur in the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Study Area ii Anri17MS I SSA-1S',1-ORA Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County ACRONYMS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe ESA Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS geographic information system NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHP Natural Heritage Program PHS Priority Habitats and Species RMC Renton Municipal Code TMC Tukwila Municipal Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation ,n,e 1 re n ,e„ non Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 1. INTRODUCTION This discipline report is intended to provide information in support of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Environmental Classification Summary form for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documented Categorical Exclusion process, assist project planning, and facilitate permitting. This report describes vegetation and wildlife resources in the area of a proposed 1.2-mile non motorized trail, evaluates potential impacts to critical areas from the proposed project, and presents mitigation for these impacts. 1.1 Project Overview King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, WSDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile-long segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile-long segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across a proposed non -motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (Figure 1-1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A would provide a much -needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A would connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. 1.2 Project Features Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft -surface (gravel) shoulders • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.7 acre outside the proposed trail footprint) • Performing ground improvements, which would disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre in addition to other disturbances from the trail • Constructing a new non -motorized pedestrian bridge, including abutments, over the Black River northeast of Monster Road (the existing Monster Road bridge cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail) • Installing a pedestrian -actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge n ...a on,o 1 Ern ,,e, non Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A : King County, City of Renton, WDFW 2014, WSDOT. oco 'arametrix Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Installing one box culvert for terrestrial habitat enhancement • Building retaining walls near the south approach to Monster Road, north of the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River, and on either side of the box culvert • Constructing two approximately 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the Black River pump station) • Installing split -rail fencing and plantings to discourage incursions into sensitive areas and to improve visual screening for sensitive wildlife Measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife resources are identified in Section 5.1 of this report. 1.3 Project Area and Setting The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor (see Figure 1-1). Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north -south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east -west bearing. These tracks tie into the north -south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to the proposed pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road (approximately 4,100 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest (see Section 3.3 of this report for a more detailed description of the Black River Riparian Forest and the wildlife communities it supports). The gravel maintenance road is currently used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generallly consist of grasses, low -growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new non -motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green Riivers is located just ...tl',Inc I rcn lC» non Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. 1.4 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non motorized transportation corridor and multi -use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW in Renton and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. Segment A would provide non -motorized access to recreation and employment centers and would complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards would safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. Completion of Segment A would provide the following benefits: • Serve local and regional non -motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. • Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. • Provide a critical link in the Regional Trail System. • Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. 1-6 Anril 7n15 I SS4-1571-nR4 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 2. METHODOLOGY This study is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts is to document existing information, to reflect current site conditions, and to collect new information to assess potential impacts. 2.1 Methods of Analysis To establish the basis for the analysis of effects on vegetation and wildlife, the ecosystems analysts delineated and classified land cover types on a 2009 aerial photograph and visited a sample of these areas during field reconnaissance surveys. The analysts identified land cover types in the vegetation and wildlife study area (see Section 3.1 for a discussion of how the study area was defined), based on the structural categories defined in Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O'Neil 2001). These land cover types are described in Section 3.2, Vegetation Types in the Study Area. Within 100 feet of the project footprint, wetland identification was based on field delineations conducted in support of the Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a). In areas where no field delineations were conducted, wetland identification was based on available geographic information system (GIS) data, supplemented by aerial photograph interpretation. To support the analysis of effects on wildlife, the ecosystems analysts identified wildlife species that are associated with the land cover types in the study area, and with specific habitat elements within each cover type. Analysts also assessed locations of known ecologically sensitive areas and important wildlife occurrences that may be sensitive to disturbance from noise or human presence. This information was supplemented with data gathered during field reconnaissance visits. The analysts evaluated the potential effects of the proposed action on vegetation and wildlife using a variety of methods and resources, including the following: • GIS analysis to determine the acreage, type, and location of affected cover types • Review of existing literature on the effects of trail construction, use, and maintenance on vegetation and wildlife • Review of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) management recommendations for priority habitats and species Biologists reviewed information provided by project engineers and identified aspects of the project that could alter habitat conditions or disturb wildlife in the project vicinity. 2.2 Studies and Coordination The ecosystems analysts used a combination of existing information and field surveys to gain an understanding of vegetation and wildlife resources that may be affected by the development of Segment A. These information sources, as well as the regulations that drive the need for this analysis, are identified below. 2.2.1 Review of Existing information To identify and classify existing vegetation types, and to estimate wildlife occurrence in the project study area, the analysts reviewed the following sources: nnfil1n1C 1 CCn. 1C11 non Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online Information, Planning, and Conservation System (USFWS 2015a) • Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database (WDNR 2014) • WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database (WDFW 2015) • Aerial photographs (2009) • Peer -reviewed and unpublished literature • Interviews with staff at federal, state, local agencies, and local interest groups • Information collected during a field reconnaissance of the study area The analysts reviewed the USFWS list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species to determine which species with ESA status have the potential to occur in the study area. Analysts reviewed NHP data for known locations of rare plant species or rare plant communities within the study area, and PHS data for known locations of wildlife species that are a management concern for WDFW, as well as habitats with unique or significant value. Figure 2-1 displays the location of the proposed trail alignment relative to mapped sensitive areas and habitat. Note that the locations of sensitive areas and habitat depicted in Figure 21 are approximate and subject to change. For example, great blue heron nests may be concentrated in the area identified as the heron colony in the figure but they may not be limited to that area. 2.2.2 Field Investigation Biologists conducted a limited field reconnaissance to verify habitat mapping and to observe wildlife species in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment. A wildlife biologist conducted a site visit on March 29, 2011. Biologists conducting site visits for the wetlands and stream discipline reports also collected data about wildlife use of the area between November 2010 and February 2011. In accordance with WDFW's management recommendations for the great blue heron (Azerrad 2012), biologists also searched the Black River Riparian Forest for evidence of heron nests, including satellite nests (i.e., nests in outlying areas away from the greatest concentration of nests). In a single -day visit: during the non - breeding season (January 10, 2013), biologists used global positioning system equipment to map the locations of all trees with heron nests, as well as trees with canopies overlapping a nest tree, confirming nest locations with aerial imagery. No formal surveys were conducted for any other wildlife species. If the project site falls within the known or expected range of a particular species, and if habitat for that species is present within the study area, then the species is assumed to be present. 2-2 Aori 12015 1 554-1521-084 i „;>:c„ ,,i),...- 0 0, 1 s:04,11 > > ____J j 1-------- 1 4�� > "'> 'ter y' - 'TA-- t > ]]>-•> 3 5 • fr3j]3�Ar}fit _ '>.} >>]>> >* ??>.>;. �I. S - >>> >>>>>> ,> ]• >>>>>: ]>] >>>->>>>>•>- a>>>,>, C i y '`>.,>> >>rti'}>>,>>. > ›t'>]]]>>> ,rr Y _ ...>.. > >5>}>7>> ,.>>>?>>�?y>} S lti i. 0. o r�• ��.. }]>,,.> >}>>>> 0 Fes, i' .. h\ >7>,fir''>> ' ro *� >>>4ir>> -. 4ra t. T6 \,'>?7›.- >Y 0 • �e?,Od '� >>> + `. 4+� v > . } • > 7 0 I ', °' > +° - I rn 4, y Z m cc pp. G �G s a)� Li a ZUv w 1. _ Z 1 0 o Ol • c '= z 0 106 11. arit401.1 1;010°.°11L co 'o W Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A > > T c 0 o c O 0 c O o I • G) c0 E o m• a m .J U cn c6 • u41 i ., Try-' i x U H w > N 0 m 7-1 m� a r1 o I N • 1 m co The ss ti U f0 m Ct 0 Q. City Boundary Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 2.2.3 Regulations The following federal regulations or statutes apply to the protection of vegetation and wildlife in the study area: • Endangered Species Act • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 State and local regulations that apply to these resources include the Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and sensitive/critical area ordinances for the Cities of Renton and Tukwila. The general goal of these regulations is to protect water quality, shorelines, aquatic habitat, wetlands, riparian areas, and associated terrestrial habitats, as well as the species that depend on these areas. The City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) outlines requirements for the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat in section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, subsection K, Habitat Conservation. Critical habitats include Category 1 wetlands (see the Critical Area Study [Parametrix 2015a] for a definition), as well as habitats associated with the documented presence of species proposed for listing or listed by the federal government or WDFW as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. State sensitive, monitor, and priority species also receive consideration under the Critical Areas Regulations. In addition, the entire area of the Black River Riparian Forest is managed under the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program, which requires shoreline areas to be managed for no net loss of ecological functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or process (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance). The City of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), Chapter 18.54.030, sets forth rules and regulations to control the clearing of trees and understory vegetation within sensitive areas and shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila. The portion of Segment A that passes through Fort Dent Park is in the City of Tukwila; areas within 200 feet of the Green River are in the shoreline zone. Conservation of fish and wildlife is regulated through TMC 18.44, Shoreline Overlay District, as well as the regulations related to wetlands and watercourses in TMC Chapter 18.45. In addition to the regulatory and statutory requirements identified above, WDFW has developed management recommendations for priority species and habitats. The purpose of these recommendations is to assist landowners, managers, and others in conducting land use activities in a manner that incorporates the needs of fish and wildlife (WDFW 2008). Pertinent to the analyses in this document are WDFW's management recommendations for the great blue heron (Azerrad 2012). Several individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the potential effects of trail construction and use on this species. Information from these management recommendations is incorporated into the discussions of affected environment and environmental consequences for great blue herons below. ...:19n,r I ern ,r„ non Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section describes the vegetation and wildlife resources in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A project. The following subsections describe the project setting, define the study area within which effects are analyzed, identify plant communities and habitat types in the study area, and identify wildlife species (including special -status species) that are known or have the potential to occur in the study area. 3.1 Study Area Analysts defined the study area for vegetation and wildlife as the project alignment (i.e., the area in which clearing, grading, and the operation of construction machinery would disturb existing habitat) plus all areas within 300 feet. This is the area in which project construction could affect vegetation cover and habitat quality for wildlife species that may occur in the area. Such effects could include direct modifications to habitat or indirect effects through modification of habitat in adjoining areas. In addition to evaluating habitat conditions within this study area, biologists assessed the potential for project - related noise and human activity to disturb sensitive wildlife species up to 1,300 feet from the proposed trail alignment. This distance was based on published guidelines for avoiding disturbance to sensitive species that may occur in the project vicinity (IJSFWS 2007; Azerrad 2012). Segment A is within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forest zone, which extends from Puget Sound into the foothills of the Cascade Mountains (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Principal forest species in this zone are western hemlock, Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Hardwoods, including bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), are less common and found primarily on disturbed sites and riparian habitats. Most native habitat in the Puget Lowlands has been subject to a variety of human disturbances over the past 150 to 200 years, including timber harvest, conversion to agriculture, road construction, and urban development. This has resulted in significant alteration of the original vegetation; much of the region is now dominated by urban and residential land uses. In contrast to regional trends, much of the vegetation and wildlife study area consists of a large stand of riparian hardwood forest that has not been permanently converted to other uses. The area south of the BNSF railroad corridor is dominated by large trees and dense thickets of shrubby wetland. The portion north of the railroad corridor, however, consists of an active concrete recycling plant and areas that have been cleared for light industrial development, and supports essentially no vegetation. The western end of the study area extends into Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. The remaining vegetation in this area consists of maintained lawns and horticultural plantings with scattered trees. 3.2 Land Cover Types in the Study Area Based on the structural categories defined by Johnson and O'Neil (2001), four land cover types occur in the study area: riparian -wetland, herbaceous wetland, urban, and open water (Figure 3-1). Approximately 55 percent of the study area, including almost the entire area north of the trail alignment, consists of urban land cover (Table 3-1). Riparian -wetland areas, which predominate south of the alignment, are the second most common cover type. Open water and herbaceous wetlands represent comparatively small proportions of the area. Note that the riparian -wetland and herbaceous wetland land cover types are not synonymous with delineated wetlands, which are regulated under the Clean Water Act and local critical areas ordinances. Wetlands are discussed in the Lake to Sound Trail — A ...i17MC I CCA_, C91. non Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County Segment A Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a). The following subsections describe these cover types, including their structural characteristics, typical plant species, wildlife habitat functions, and conditions in the study area. Table 3-1. Land Cover in the Wildlife and Vegetation Study Area for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Construction Project Land Cover Type Acres in the Study Area a Riparian -Wetland 33 Herbaceous Wetland 1 Urban 49 Open Water 5 Total 88 a The study area consists of all areas within 300 feet of the project alignment. 3.2.1 Riparian -Wetland This habitat type typically consists of a mosaic of forest and tall shrublands. Trees are evergreen conifers or deciduous broadleaf or a mixture of both, with understories composed of shrubs, forbs, and/or grasses. Water is sometimes present on the surface for a portion of the year. Small stream channels and small backwater channels on larger streams are included in this habitat. Wetlands classified according the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) as palustrine forested and palustrine scrub -shrub are included in this habitat type. For this analysis, this habitat type also includes unmaintained grassy areas at the periphery of the Black River Riparian Forest, as well as the vegetated banks of the Black River and the Green River. Typical tree species in the riparian -wetland portion of the study area include red alder, black cottonwood, Pacific willow (Salix lucida), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and western redcedar. Grand fir (Abies grandis) and bigleaf maple are also present within and adjacent to some wetland areas. Common shrub species include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) in wetland areas, and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) in adjacent uplands. Beavers (Castor canadensis) play an important role in the riparian -wetland habitat type by constructing dams that change the hydrology of the stream system. The presence of Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and other exotic species within the riparian -wetland portions of the study area indicate the site has been impacted by human disturbance. 4-7 A nri l 7n 15 1 55d-157141Rd MS any saipeN 0 N N N 4) 0 X W N 0) N < C >, F (6 O C 0 0 (n 472. = X m a) > 5 E (0 N a 0 0 c 0 D: o C a) T E U y C N 0 o a—_ 0 0 m rn 'C d CD l/1 C 0 Riparian -Wetland Cl ti Land Cover Type Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Herbaceous Wetland City Boundary 0 0 0 U o ru Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 3.2.2 Herbaceous Wetland In western Washington, herbaceous wetlands commonly co-occur with riparian -wetlands along stream corridors. Seasonally to semi -permanently flooded wetlands are found where standing fresh water is present through part of the growing season and the soils stay saturated throughout: the season. The herbaceous wetland habitat is generally a mix of emergent herbaceous plants with a grass -like life form (graminoids). These meadow -like areas often occur with deep- or shallow -water habitats with floating or rooting aquatic forbs. Species identified in herbaceous wetlands in the study area include reed canarygrass and narrow -leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). 3.2.3 Urban Urban development occupies much of the lowland area of western Washington. Most original habitat has been dramatically altered in urban environments and is replaced by buildings, impermeable surfaces, bridges, dams, and plantings of non-native species. Some human -made structures provide habitats similar to those of cavities, caves, fissures, cliffs, and ledges. Urban areas typically have high levels of human disturbance. Ground cover in the most intensively developed areas, if not synthetic or impervious, is typically exotic grasses or annuals, most of which are rarely allowed to go to seed. Vegetation in residential areas typically consists of manicured lawns, trimmed hedges, and pruned trees. Snags, woody debris, and other natural structures are essentially nonexistent (Johnson and O'Neil 2001). Urban cover types in the vegetation and wildlife study area include the concrete recycling plant and neighboring areas that have been cleared for light industrial development. Most of t;he northern portion of the study area consists of urban land cover. Other areas mapped as urban cover include roadways, disturbed openings, most of the existing trail corridor, buildings and parking lots, and maintained areas within Fort Dent Park. Riparian vegetation in the urban portions of the study area is sparse, with only a few scattered deciduous trees. Shrub vegetation is dominant, including a large amount of Himalayan blackberry. The vegetation is not adequate to provide for the functions of a properly functioning riparian zone (i.e., stream shading, large woody debris recruitment, leaf litter input, etc.). Levels of noise and human activity in urban areas are typically higher than in less developed settings. During site visits conducted for this report, noise from heavy machinery in the concrete recycling business was audible along the portions of the trail corridor that are mapped as urban land cover. Some portions of Fort Dent Park that are mapped as urban land cover currently support trees ranging from saplings to mature specimens. These include a row of 16 Douglas -fir trees north of the sports fields, ranging in size from 12 to 20 inches in diameter at breast height. Several smaller deciduous trees occur in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment in this area. 3.2.4 Open Water Throughout the Puget Sound region, ponds and lakes are often found in the same areas as herbaceous wetlands, while rivers and streams typically adjoin riparian -wetland areas. Many ponds and marshes have been created or are maintained by the activity of beavers. Human -made reservoirs created by dams impound water that creates lake -like habitat. Most of the streams entering Puget Sound originate in glacier fields high in the mountains. Water from melting snowpacks and glaciers provides flow during the spring and summer. Open water habitat in the study area includes the lagoon above the Black River Anri17n1G 1 SSA_1 G71j9,1 0 c Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County pump station, and short stretches of the Black River, Green River, and Duwamish River. Open water habitat provides foraging areas for bald eagles, osprey, and great blue herons, and breeding habitat for several species of amphibians, such as northwestern salamanders, long -toed salamanders, and Pacific chorus frogs. 3.3 Wildlife Species in the Study Area Much of the land in the southern half of the study area is natural open space, primarily forested riparian and wetland habitat. This is the Black River Riparian Forest, which supports a diverse wildlife community, including bald eagles and a colony of great blue herons that has actively nested here every year since 1986 and has been one of the largest such colonies in the Puget Sound region (Stenberg 2007). Data from the WDFW PHS program indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by many waterfowl species, including bufflehead, mallard, gadwall, wigeon, scaup, and green -winged teal (WDFW 2015). Other bird species commonly found in riparian and wetland habitats in the Puget Lowlands include osprey, red-tailed hawk, and a variety of songbirds (Appendix A). Mammals present may include coyotes, raccoons, beavers, mice, voles, and moles. Reptiles and amphibians that use these habitats include garter snakes, Pacific chorus frogs, and Tong -toed salamanders. Based on breeding bird survey reports (Opperman et al. 2006), 52 bird species are known or expected to nest in the nine -square -mile survey block that contains the project area; an additional 20 species are known or expected to nest in adjacent survey blocks (Appendix A). Based on Christmas Bird Count data rom the Audubon Society (2011), common winter visitors to the area include northern pintails, western grebes, and glaucous -winged gulls. Rivers and streams are used as travel corridors by many wildlife species, including semi -aquatic species such as muskrat, mink, otter, frogs, stream salamanders, turtles, and snakes (Jackson 2003). Despite the widespread urbanization of the Green River corridor, riparian areas along the river may serve as a connective corridor between Puget Sound and undeveloped areas in the Cascade Mountains. No corridors that have been identified as part of the wildlife habitat network in the King County Comprehensive Plan are present within or adjacent to the study area, however. 3.4 Special -status Species in the Study Area Special -status species include (1) species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, (2) species that are candidates or proposed for listing under the ESA, (3) species listed by WDFW as endangered, threatened, candidate, or sensitive, and (4) other species for which critical habitat areas are designated by the City of Renton or for which fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are designated by the City of Tukwila. As defined in the RMIC, critical habitats are Category 1 wetlands and habitat associated with the documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government or the State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority. Areas designated as fish and wildlife habiotat conservation areas by the City of Tukwila are mapped by the City; they include areas with which endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, as well as habitats and species of local importance. Information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage database indicates that no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur within 5 miles of the study area (WDNR 2014). The only ESA -listed plant with the potential to occur in King County is golden paintbrush q-A Anril 7111S 1 SSA-1S'71-(1524. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County (Castilleja levisecta), which is known from historical observations in the region. Suitable habitat for golden paintbrush (open grasslands in glacial outwash prairies) is not present in the study area. There are no known occurrences of special -status plant species within 5 miles of the study area (WDNR 2014). There are no extant occurrences of ESA -listed plant species in King County (USFWS 2015a). In addition to being protected through various regulatory mechanisms, many plants and lichens have traditionally been used by a wide variety of cultures in western Washington. Traditional uses include food, medicine, fibers, textiles, building materials, and spiritual uses. Botanical specialists reviewed a list of 84 species of trees, shrubs, herbs, ferns, and lichens identified by WSDOT as ethnobotanical resources in western Washington (WSDOT 2010) and determined that many of these species are present in the study area. The USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System identified seven ESA -listed wildlife species as potentially occurring in areas that might be affected by the proposed project. None of these species is expected to occur in the study area, however, for the following reasons: • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), and gray wolf (Canis lupus) are identified as potentially occurring in King County. However, the study area is in a lowland setting with relatively high levels of human activity and no nearby roadless areas and thus does not provide suitable habitat for any of these species. No observations of any of these species have been documented within 5 miles of the study area (WDFW 2015). • Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) occur in Washington State at large wetland complexes in Klickitat, Skamania, Thurston, Skagit, and Whatcom counties. Oregon spotted frogs depend on relatively large areas with perennial bodies of fresh water and associated wetlands. No observations of this species have been documented within 10 miles of the study area (WDFW 2015). The nearest location where critical habitat has been proposed for the Oregon spotted frog is more than 40 miles from the study area (USFWS 2015b). • Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) require old -growth forest for nesting and marine habitat for foraging. No breeding or foraging habitat is present in the study area and no observations have been documented within 5 miles (WDFW 2015). The nearest location where critical habitat has been designated for the marbled murrelet is more than 25 miles from the study area. • Yellow -billed cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus) require large blocks of riparian forest habitat for breeding and foraging. No such habitat is present in or near the study area. Currently, the species no longer breeds in western Canada and the northwestern continental United States (Washington, Oregon, and Montana) (79 FR 59992, October 3, 2014). No observations of this species have been documented within 10 miles of the study area (WDFW 2015). No critical habitat for the yellow -billed cuckoo has been proposed in Washington State. • Streaked horned larks (Eremophila alpestris strigata) are known to occur in Washington State only in portions of southern Puget Sound, along the Washington coast, and at lower Columbia River islands (78 FR 61452, October 3, 2013). Breeding habitat for streaked horned larks in Washington consists of grasslands and sparsely vegetated areas at airports, sandy islands, and coastal spits. The subspecies is largely absent from the Puget Trough during the nonbreeding season; individuals observed in this area outside of the breeding season have been seen using habitats similar to those used for breeding. No such habitat is present in the study area, and the study area is not within the known range of the subspecies. The nearest location where critical nnril �m S I Sce_1 S11 _nQn Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County habitat has been designated for the streaked horned lark is more than 90 miles from the study area. Based on the above, the proposed project has no potential to affect Canada lynx, grizzly bears, gray wolves, Oregon spotted frogs, marbled murrelets, yellow -billed cuckoos, or streaked horned larks. These species will not be addressed further in this analysis. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, administered by USFWS, makes it unlawful to take, import, export, possess, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, with the exception of the taking of game birds during established hunting seasons. The law also applies to feathers, eggs, nests, and products made from migratory birds. Nearly all bird species that may occur in the study area are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All habitats in the study area support migratory birds of some type at some time in their life cycle, therefore all habitats identified above would be considered habitat for migratory birds. Table 3-2 lists special -status wildlife species that have been observed or that may occur in the study area. Documented species include those for which occurrences have been recorded in the WDFW PHS database or that have been observed during field reconnaissance visits. Analysts determined the potential for other special -status species to occur in the study area based on the species' ranges, as well as the presence in the study area of habitat commonly used by the species. Species that could potentially be affected by construction or use of the trail are discussed below. Table 3-2. Special -status Species Documented or Expected to Occur in the Study Area Species Status Occurrence in Study Area Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) State sensitive State monitor State candidate State sensitive State candidate State candidate Documented Documented Not documented; may occur Not documented; may occur Documented Not documented; may occur 3.4.1 Bald Eagle Bald eagles receive protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668- 668d), which prohibits take (defined to include pursuing, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting, or disturbing bald or golden eagles), possession, and commerce of these species. Proposals for commercial or residential development within 660 feet of bald eagle nests, roost sites, or foraging areas may be required to comply with federal guidelines for bald eagle management. Bald eagles use large trees for nesting, roosting, and perching. In Washington, nearly all bald eagle nests are within 1 mile of a lake, river, or marine shoreline (Stinson et al. 2001). Bald eagles typically forage over open water and use riparian trees (often cottonwood) for perching. 3_R April 2015 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County During the breeding season, bald eagles are sensitive to a variety of human activities. However, not all bald eagle pairs react to human activities in the same way. Some pairs nest successfully just dozens of yards from human activity, while others abandon nest sites in response to activities much farther away. In general, the bald eagle breeding season in Washington State extends from January 1 through August 31 (Watson and Rodrick 2004). Eagles are most sensitive to disturbance between early February and early May, when they are establishing territories, incubating eggs, and tending newly hatched chicks. Another period of heightened sensitivity occurs in early July, when the young may be frightened off the nest before they are able to fly (USFWS 2007). PHS data show one bald eagle nest site within 1,000 feet of the project area (WDFW 2015). The branch that supported this nest blew down and eagles did not nest at that location in 2010,. In 2011, biologists and other visitors to the Black River Riparian Forest observed no evidence of eagles nesting in the area. Another nest, on the hillslope above the concrete recycling property, is considered by WDFW to belong to the same nesting territory. This surmise is supported by monitoring data from 2005 through 2008, showing that when one of the two nests was active, the other was unoccupied. Such a pattern of activity is consistent with a pair of birds using alternating sites in a single nesting territory. The nest site above the concrete recycling property is approximately 1,300 feet away from the proposed trail alignment. Before 2010, eagles from the Black River nesting territory were observed preying on great blue herons in the Black River nesting colony. During the March 2011 site visit, an adult bald eagle was observed flying low over the site of the heron colony. The Green River likely also provides foraging habitat for bald eagles in the area. 3.4.2 Great Blue Heron Great blue herons are associated with wetlands, seashores, rivers, swamps, marshes, and ditches (Quinn and Milner 2004). The availability of nesting, foraging, and pre -nesting areas close to one another is a key factor in determining the suitability of habitat for great blue herons (Gebauer and Moul 2001). Nesting typically occurs in colonies of a few pairs to many hundreds of birds; occasionally, great blue herons nest as isolated pairs (Butler 1997). Ideal nesting habitat typically consists of mature forest (Gebauer and Moul 2001), although herons nest occasionally on the ground, in shrubs, on cliffs, or on human -made structures (Azerrad 2012). During the breeding season, herons forage primarily in the shallow margins of waterbodies within approximately 2 miles of a nesting colony (Butler 1997). Pre - nesting congregation areas have been documented near many nesting colonies. Great blue herons gather at these sites at or before the beginning of the breeding season (Azerrad 2012). Although not a state -listed or ESA -listed species in Washington, the great blue heron is a species of special concern in British Columbia due to declining productivity (COSEWIC 2008). Great blue herons are highly vulnerable to predation, human disturbance, and competition for nesting habitat (COSEWIC 2008; Azerrad 2012). The study area falls within the range of the Pacific subspecies (Ardea herodias fannini), which is found in coastal areas and along large rivers from Prince William Sound to Puget Sound (Azerrad 2012). Nesting colony locations are dynamic, especially in areas of high disturbance. Some colonies are used for many years but most —especially those with fewer than 25 nests —are relocated every few years (Gebauer and Moul 2001). Great blue herons may abandon or relocate their colonies in response to predation, declines in food availability, or increased human disturbance (Quinn and Milner 2004; COSEWIC 2008). Kenyon (2005) found that great blue herons may respond to repeated bald eagle attacks on nesting colonies by redistributing into smaller, more widely scattered colonies. Colony A n.il1/11C 1 CCA_1C')1_f1OA Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County abandonment has also resulted from activities such as nearby land development and repeated human intrusions into nesting areas (Azerrad 2012). Even in cases where flushing or other obvious responses do not occur, human disturbance may result in reduced nesting productivity (Vennesland and Butler 2004). Human disturbance has been identified as one of the major factors (along with predation by eagles and habitat declines from land development) limiting the persistence of heron populations in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2008). Human disturbance may also increase the susceptibility of heron colonies to eagle predation. Reduction of forest cover may allow easier access to nest sites. In addition, if adults are flushed from their nests, eggs and nestlings are vulnerable to predation (COSEWIC 2008). Heron colonies vary in their sensitivity to human activities. In some instances, a single event involving human disturbance has led an entire colony to terminate a nesting attempt (Azerrad 2012). In contrast, herons nesting in public parks in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, appear to tolerate the frequent presence of pedestrians and vehicles directly below their nests (COSEWIC 2008). More sensitive colonies may respond to disturbances at a great distance. Azerrad (2012) reports that the presence of people as far as 820 feet from some heron colonies may cause birds to flush. Herons may tolerate everyday human activities, but birds often suspend nesting when they perceive the activity to be a threat (Vennesland 2000; City of Vancouver Parks and Recreation 2006). Vennesland (2000) found that herons habituate to non -threatening human disturbance, but that they are more sensitive to disturbance at certain times of year. Great blue herons are less tolerant of disturbance during the pre - courtship and courtship periods (typically mid -February through mid -April in Washington), then become less likely to flush or abandon nests once eggs have been laid (Azerrad 2012). If dense vegetation obscures human activity, herons may be less likely to react to human disturbance (Gebauer and Moul 2001). Notably, the pre -courtship and courtship periods typically occur before deciduous trees fully leaf out in this region, increasing the vulnerability of herons to visual and auditory disturbance during these periods. WDFW's management recommendations for great blue herons specify buffers to protect colonies by keeping potentially harmful activities away from nesting colonies (Azerrad 2012). In suburban and rural areas', WDFW recommends a year-round buffer of 656 feet (200 meters) around nesting colonies. Grading, construction, and vegetation clearing are discouraged within this buffer (Azerrad 2012). WDFW's management recommendations also advise that trails should be directed away from the buffer area or be closed off to access in the breeding season (Azerrad 2012). In situations where it is not feasible to implement such restrictions, WDFW offers the following recommendations: • Site the project as far as possible from nests. • Provide visual screening between nests and project disturbances. • Carry out the project during the non -breeding season. • Mitigate for the project's infringement into the buffer area (Azerrad 2012). WDFW's management recommendations for great blue herons also specify seasonal buffers to protect nesting birds. Within an area that extends 656 feet beyond the outer edge of the year-round buffer, WDFW recommends that unusually loud activities (i.e., activities generating noise levels exceeding 92 1 The proportion of built environment within 0.25 mile of the colony is approximately 25 percent, meaning the colony is in a suburban/rural setting as defined by Azerrad (2012). z_1 n April 2015 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County decibels at the outer boundary of the nesting colony) should not be allowed from February to September (Azerrad 2012). The remaining habitat elements specified in WDFW's management recommendations are pre -nesting congregation areas, alternative nest sites, and foraging habitat. WDFW recommends minimal disturbance of any areas where herons congregate before the nesting season. To protect alternative nest sites, WDFW recommends retaining several forested nesting stands of at least 10 acres within approximately 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) of an active colony. Potentially suitable alternative nest sites include former heron colony sites (provided the site was not abandoned in response to long-term changes in habitat conditions) and other stands with a forest structure and tree species composition similar to the active nesting stand (Azerrad 2012). To protect foraging habitat, WDFW recommends establishing adequate riparian buffers along all bodies of water within 1.9 miles (3 kilometers) of a nesting colony. WDFW also recommends minimizing the following activities where herons feed: • Removal of aquatic vegetation • Use of watercraft within 590 feet of shallow waters • Logging mature forest close to nearshore foraging habitat • Removing perch trees adjacent to foraging areas • Draining, filling, or dredging wetlands or marshes • Building close to riparian shorelines For many years, the Black River Riparian Forest supported one of the largest breeding colonies of great blue herons in Washington State, with more than 100 nests distributed throughout much of the forested area (Stenberg 2007). For much of that time, the greatest density of nests was near the eastern edge of the lagoon above the Black River pump station, near the confluence with Springbrook Creek (Hamilton 2013 personal communication). Since 2003, nearly all nesting activity has taken place in a stand of cottonwood trees approximately 500 feet to the northwest of that site. The approximate location of this stand is depicted in Figure 2-1. For this analysis, the actual location of the nesting stand was determined in accordance with WDFW's management recommendations for great blue herons (see Subsection 2.2.2, Field Investigation). The locations of nest trees or overlapping trees farthest from the center of the colony were used to determine the perimeter of the colony. It should be noted that the locations of the nests observed during the field investigations do not define the full extent of the area in which nesting occurred in the past, nor where future nesting attempts could occur. In some years, herons have been observed in great numbers early in the breeding season, perched in trees along the north side of the pump station lagoon (Hamilton 2013 personal communication). Forest stands between the pump station and the current nesting area are likely a pre -nesting congregation area for the colony. Potential foraging habitat is available within 1.9 miles of the nesting colony along the Black, Green, Duwamish, and Lower Cedar Rivers, at various wetland mitigation sites in Renton and Tukwila, and at ponds in Waterworks Garden F'ark, Longacres Business Park, Fort Dent Park, Foster Golf Course, and near Southcenter Mall. Nesting activity at the Black River nesting colony was greatly reduced during the 2010 breeding season, likely due to predatory pressure from bald eagles (Anderson 2011 personal communication). Several active nests, perhaps as many as six, were observed in the colony stand in 2011 and 2012, and herons continue to forage in the area. It is possible that herons will resume nesting at this site in densities nnril )t 1 I ccn_a c11 non Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County similar to those observed in the past. Chatwin et al. (2009) described one colony, active for more than 20 years, that was abandoned in 1996 and that remained inactive until herons returned in 2002. Local observers are continuing to monitor the Black River colony site. In January and early February 2015, as many as 25 herons were observed in and around the colony site. By early March, however, fewer than five herons were seen and none exhibited behavior indicative of nesting, leading observers to speculate that the Black River Riparian Forest may not support a large nesting colony in 2015. Nevertheless, the presence of relatively large numbers of herons early in the breeding season indicates the potential for continued nesting activity at the colony site. 3.4.3 Western Toad This species uses wetland habitats while in the tadpole stage and for breeding as an adult. Adult toads regularly use forested upland habitat. Western toads may occur in both wetland habitat and riparian forest habitat in the study area. 3.4.4 Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons typically nest in cliffs that are at least 150 feet in height, although they will also use buildings and bridges (Hays and Milner 2004). No peregrine falcon nest sites have been documented in the study area and no suitable nesting cliffs occur within 1 mile of the project area. Falcons typically hunt in open habitats such as wetlands and croplands; hunting territories may extend up to 15 miles from a nest site (Hays and Milner 2004). Although no peregrine falcons have been reported in the area, open habitats in the study area may provide suitable foraging habitat for nesting or overwintering birds. The nearest known aerie is approximately 8 miles away from the project area. 3.4.5 Pileated Woodpecker Pileated woodpeckers inhabit mature and old -growth forests, and second -growth forests with large snags and fallen trees. Foraging habitat includes forests containing large trees and snags, and dead and dying wood (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). In residential and developing areas, pileated woodpeckers may occupy remnant forest patches and forage on large and small -diameter coniferous and hardwood trees and snags (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). Trees or snags that provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat are absent from the project footprint but occur within forested portions of the study area. Biologists delineating wetlands observed a pileated woodpecker in the project study area in 2011. 3.4.6 Townsend's Big -eared Bat The Townsend's big -eared bat is associated with forest habitat, but is a species of concern primarily because its nursery colonies are sensitive to disturbance (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). Nursery colonies of this species are commonly located in caves, lava tubes, or abandoned buildings; bridge abutments have occasionally been used by individual male bats as day roosts (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). Within the study area, the Black River pump station, the Monster Road Bridge, and the railroad bridges may provide suitable sites for day roosts. This and other bat species may forage for insects along forest edges and over wetlands in the study area. April 2015 1 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following subsections describe the potential effects of trail construction and use on vegetation and wildlife in the study area. The analysis of effects on vegetation focuses on temporary or permanent changes in the vegetative cover in the study area. The analysis of effects on wildlife focuses primarily on the potential for trail construction or use to disturb wildlife species, and secondarily on the potential for changes in vegetative cover to affect habitat suitability. 4.1 Construction Effects This section describes the extent and type of temporary and permanent effects on vegetation and wildlife resources that could occur as a result of construction activities associated with the proposed project. 4.1.1 Vegetation Under the proposed action, clearing and grading for trail construction would permanently convert existing land cover within the area of the project footprint to a developed condition.. Nearly all clearing would occur along the existing maintenance road, most of which consists of hardened surfaces or non- native plants. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is urban, consisting primarily of the gravel surface of the existing road. Approximately 1.8 acres urban land cover would be affected by trail construction. Where the trail route falls within areas classified as riparian -wetland habitat, the project footprint is largely free of trees and shrubs that are the characteristic features of that habitat type. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.9 acre of this land cover type and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the 88-acre study area. Some low -growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy would be reduced in some places. Within Fort Dent Park, approximately 20 trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter at breast height would be cleared for trail construction. Several others may be affected by disturbance of understory vegetation within the areas shaded by the trees' canopies, or through root compaction by construction activities. Because these trees are located within the shoreline zone for the Green River, trail construction would be subject to the requirements of a Tree Clearing Permit per TMC 18.54.070. This permit would identify all affected trees, along with the measures that would be implemented to protect them. All understory vegetation within the root zone of protected trees would either be retained or removed by methods that do not damage the tree, then replaced with suitable vegetation, per TMC 18.54.130(1). Any tree larger than 4 inches diameter that is removed within the City of Tukwila would be replaced with one or more new trees, based on the replacement ratios in TMC 18.54.130(3). The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. In total, approximately 129 trees would be removed within the City of Renton, most of which (117) would be cottonwoods. Only one coniferous tree (a 6-inch-diameter Douglas -fir within the clearing area for the proposed pedestrian bridge) would be removed. The other trees removed for trail construction would be red alders (7 trees), willows (2 trees), bigleaf maple (1 tree), and native cherry (1 tree). Approximately 49 of the trees proposed for removal are between 6 inches and 10 inches in diameter. Twenty-seven trees are smaller than 6 inches, 37 trees are between 10 and 16 inches, and 16 trees (all cottonwoods) are larger than 16 inches in diameter. AnriI 1n1c I ccA_ic»_nQA n Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County Most of the trees proposed for removal in the City of Renton are within the regulatory buffers of streams and/or wetlands. As discussed in the Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized below, compensatory mitigation for the Toss of trees in these areas would focus on enhancing ecological functions, ultimately providing equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. In addition, where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, all cleared trees larger than 6 inches in diameter, whether they are inside or outside of a regulatory buffer, would be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Planting for visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this commitment. Construction activities would not result in any direct effects on (i.e., fill within) wetlands or streams. Effects on the regulatory buffers around wetlands and streams would occur where the proposed trail alignment encroaches into currently vegetated areas adjacent to these features. Trail construction would permanently affect approximately 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of stream buffer (Parametrix 2015a, b). Approximately 0.13 acre of this area is both wetland buffer and stream buffer; therefore, the total buffer area affected would be 0.95 acre. Note that these impacts were calculated through a different process than the GIS analysis that was used for the assessment of impacts on vegetation for this report and therefore differ from the values presented in Table 41. The potentially affected wetland buffer areas are generally low -functioning and are composed primarily of grasses and forbs along the existing maintenance road edge (Parametrix 2015a). The potentially affected stream buffer areas also generally provide minimal riparian function and are dominated by invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, although some native cottonwood trees would also be removed (Parametrix 2015b). King County has developed a plan that identifies compensatory mitigation for all permanent project - related effects on wetland buffers and stream buffers. The mitigation plan, which is described in the Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized in Section 5.3 of this document, focuses on enhancing ecological functions in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded, ultimately providing equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. For these reasons, trail construction is not expected to result in any net loss of any ecological functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or processes (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) in the Black River Riparian Forest. Temporary effects on vegetation would also occur outside of the project footprint. These effects would be the result of construction equipment moving over vegetated areas, primarily areas of grass or herbaceous vegetation. Temporary effects would likely be limited to an area within 2 feet of the project footprint. All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre -construction conditions and would be re -planted or seeded with native species. Vegetation in temporarily affected areas would likely return to a state resembling pre -construction conditions within a few growing seasons after the completion of construction. Temporary impacts would affect approximately 0.22 acre of vegetation in wetland and stream buffers (Parametrix 2015a, b) and are not expected to have any substantial effects on habitat quality in these areas. As noted above, WDNR (2014) has recorded no occurrences of special -status plant species in the study area and biologists observed none during field surveys conducted for this project. If any undetected populations of any special -status species are present in the project footprint, they would be permanently lost during vegetation clearing. a-J April 2015 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 4.1.2 Wildlife As noted earlier, the primary way in which trail construction could affect wildlife is through noise and human activity, which may disturb sensitive species and temporarily alter habitat use. Sources of noise associated with trail construction would include dump trucks, backhoes, graders, pavers, and other machinery. The degree of disturbance would depend on the noise level, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the sensitivity of individual animals. Construction work would be expected to begin in the late spring of 2016 and would likely be complete within 1 year. Measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize disturbance to sensitive wildlife species are specified in Section 5.1 (Avoidance and Minimization Measures). Animals that are sensitive to disturbance would likely avoid the area while construction is underway. Such effects would be temporary and localized and would not likely influence the long-term viability of local populations of most species. Potential effects on two species of particular concern, bald eagle and great blue heron, are discussed further in Section 4.1.3, below. Under the proposed action, clearing for trail construction would permanently convert vegetated areas within the area of the project footprint to a developed condition. As discussed for Vegetation, above, clearing is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in habitat availability in the study area. Widening of the existing maintenance road may reduce the amount of cover available for small mammals immediately adjacent to the trail, but suitable cover is abundant throughout the study area. Similarly, the study area provides ample alternative nesting habitat for bird species that might nest in shrubs and small trees that are cleared for trail widening. Based on the assessments presented in the discipline reports for wetlands (Parametrix 2015a) and streams (Parametrix 2015b), effects on wetland and stream buffers are not expected result in decreased habitat quality for amphibians and other species that depend on wetlands for breeding, feeding, resting, and other needs. Habitat replacement would occur through wetland buffer and stream buffer mitigation, and additional habitat enhancement would be achieved through the planting of native trees and shrubs as visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation). Additional wetlands are likely present throughout the study area (particularly in the Black River Riparian Forest), but were not delineated because they are outside of the wetland delineation study area. No temporary or permanent impacts are anticipated to occur to any wetlands. With no loss of wetland habitat in the project area, local populations of wetland -dependent wildlife species are not expected to be affected. Vegetation clearing during spring and summer may damage or destroy the nests of migratory birds in the project area. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, King County would consult with USFWS to identify ways of minimizing harm to migratory birds. The primary means of reducing or eliminating take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is to conduct vegetation clearing and construction activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through August 31. 4.1.3 Special -status Species Bald Eagle No trees suitable for bald eagle nesting, roosting, or perching would be removed by trail construction. Therefore, the project would not be expected to affect the availability of suitable habitat for bald eagles in the study area. n nril lmc I ccnAc» non Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County The nearest bald eagle nest location is more than 1,000 feet from the proposed trail alignment. According to guidelines developed by the USFWS (2007), clearing, construction, and landscaping activities more than 660 feet away from an active nest are unlikely to cause disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Because the nearest nest is beyond this distance, trail construction would not be expected to result in any disturbance of nesting bald eagles. Construction noise and activity have the potential to disturb bald eagles that are foraging in the Black River Riparian Forest or other suitable habitat in adjoining areas. Any eagles that flush from foraging areas in response to construction activity would likely find ample opportunities to feed in nearby areas that are not within the territories defended by other nesting pairs. Such areas are readily available along the shorelines of the Green River, Cedar River, and Lake Washington. Great Blue Heron No vegetation clearing would take place in forested stands within or immediately adjacent to the Black River nesting colony; therefore, trail construction would have no direct effects on nesting habitat availability or suitability for great blue herons. WDFW's management recommendations for great blue herons state that grading, construction, and vegetation clearing should not occur within a nesting colony or its year-round buffer. As shown in Figure 4-1, approximately 430 linear feet of the proposed trail alignment falls within the year-round buffer for the Black River nesting colony (i.e., a 656-foot radius from the outermost nests observed during field investigations; it should be borne in mind that future nesting attempts could occur in locations closer to the proposed trail alignment). At its nearest point, the trail would be approximately 600 feet from the nesting area. Although trail clearing and construction would constitute a modification of the landscape within the year-round buffer for the nesting colony, most of the trail alignment is at the edge of existing disturbed areas associated with the railroad corridor and the concrete recycling plant (Figure 4-1). Vegetation disturbance associated with trail construction would, therefore, occur at the far edge of the year-round buffer, and would not constitute an incursion into previously undisturbed habitat. In addition, existing vegetation provides visual screening along portions of the alignment, further reducing the potential for trail construction activities to disturb nesting herons. Even during winter, when branches are bare, no nests are visible from the trail alignment. It is possible, however, that the effects of grading and construction could be visible to nesting herons —as they fly in and out of the nesting colony, for example. Nearly all portions of the proposed trail alignment that are within 656 feet of the colony site consist of the cleared and hardened surface of the existing maintenance road. However, as noted in Section 4.1.1, Vegetation, the City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. Approximately nine of the trees proposed for removal are within 656 feet of the colony site (all are more than 600 feet from the colony site). All of the trees proposed for removal are cottonwoods. Four are between 6 and 10 inches in diameter, 3 are between 10 and 16 inches in diameter, and 2 are between 16 and 20 inches in diameter. Changes in vegetation cover at the edge of the existing disturbed area are not expected to reduce the likelihood that herons will use the Black River site for breeding or cause herons to abandon active nests. The trail alignment consists of a narrow strip of already disturbed vegetation at the far edge of the forest stand, and additional clearing would not represent a substantial change in the character of the site. See Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation, for a discussion of the proposed planting of native trees and shrubs as visual a -a Anril 201S 1 SS4-1s21-0g4 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) In contrast to most of the trail alignment, which is at the edge of existing disturbed areas north of the Black River Riparian Forest, the easternmost 500 feet of the alignment passes through an area with forest cover on both sides (Figure 4-1). Construction activities in this area could be perceived by herons as a new source of disturbance, distinct from ongoing activities in the railroad corridor and the concrete recycling plant. This portion of the alignment is separated from the colony site by approximately 1,300 feet of dense vegetation, however. The visual screening provided by the distance and vegetation would be expected to minimize the potential for visual disturbance of nesting herons, even early in the breeding season, before leaf -out is complete. Noise from construction machinery may be audible within the colony site. Sudden, loud noises may frighten birds off nests, rendering eggs and young more vulnerable to predation. Such disruptions may diminish reproductive success during the season in which they occur, and could contribute to abandonment of nests or even of the colony. Also, the additional noise sources could exacerbate stress levels for a nesting colony that has been subject to noise and other disturbance from ongoing activities at the concrete recycling plant and light industrial development nearby. The risk of disturbance to nesting herons can be reduced by the implementation of timing restrictions for construction activities that would be visible or audible from the nesting stand. As noted above, existing vegetation provides visual screening to varying degrees along the entire alignment. To address noise disturbance, WDFW's management recommendations for great blue herons advise that unusually loud activities should not be allowed within 1,312 feet (i.e., the 656-foot year-round buffer plus a 656- foot seasonal buffer) of an active colony from February to September. Approximately 3,500 feet of the proposed trail alignment, from its eastern terminus to a point north of the Black River pump station, falls within the seasonal buffer for the Black River nesting colony (Figure 4-1). Machinery and equipment to be used for trail construction would include trucks, backhoes, compressors, and pumps. The average maximum noise levels associated with these types of equipment do not exceed 83 decibels (WSDOT 2013). Noise from trail construction would not, therefore, exceed the 92-decibel threshold that defines unusually loud activities according to WDFW's management recommendations. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential for disturbance to breeding herons, activity restrictions would be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. These restrictions would apply to activities that are likely to cause disturbance to nesting herons, such as major earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand tools would be allowed during the breeding season. Trail construction would not involve any blasting, pile driving, or other activities that generate high -intensity noise. Portions of the trail alignment north of the Black River pump station are approximately 250 to 500 feet from stands that have been used as pre -nesting congregation areas. Trail construction early in the breeding season could disturb birds using these areas, potentially disrupting breeding activities. WDFW recommends minimal disturbance of any area where herons congregate prior to nesting (Azerrad 2012). The portions of the trail alignment that are near the pre -nesting congregation area are also within the 1,312-foot seasonal buffer around the nesting area. Implementation of activity restrictions within the seasonal buffer between January 15 and August 31 would, therefore, also reduce or eliminate the potential for disturbance of herons using the pre -nesting congregation area. nnril �n�c I ccn_ic»_nQn 'arametrix Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County The location of the proposed pedestrian bridge is more than 1,312 feet away from the Black River colony (Figure 4 1). Noise from heavy equipment used to stabilize soils and improve Toad -bearing capacity for the bridge may be audible in areas that have been identified as pre -nesting congregation areas for the colony, however. Under the terms of the hydraulic project approval issued by WDFW, construction work near the ordinary high water mark of the river would be restricted to late summer. This work window would not overlap with the pre -nesting period (January through March, typically) when great blue herons using pre -nesting congregation areas are most sensitive to disturbance (Azerrad 202). Based on the timing of work and the distance from known nesting areas, therefore, bridge construction work would not be likely to disturb nesting great blue herons. Construction noise and activity also may disturb great blue herons that are foraging along the Black River or the Green River near the proposed trail alignment. Implementation of activity restrictions between January 15 and August 31 would reduce the potential for construction activity to disturb foraging herons during the breeding season. Any herons that flush from foraging areas in response to construction activity would likely find opportunities to feed in nearby areas, such as the Duwamish River, Cedar River, Springbrook Creek, and numerous isolated ponds and patches of wetland habitat. As discussed in Subsection 4.1.1 above, trail construction is not expected to result in any direct effects on wetlands or net loss of ecological functions or processes of riparian habitat. In addition, trail construction would not entail any removal of aquatic vegetation, use of watercraft, logging of mature forest, or removal of perch trees. As a result, trail construction would not be expected to affect foraging habitat suitability. Western Toad Trail construction in wetland buffers could affect the quality of breeding habitat for western toads by modifications to wetland hydrology or water quality. The affected wetlands, however, may be too small to offer sufficient breeding habitat. Western toads are more likely to breed in larger ponds in the study area (Jones et al. 2005), none of which would be affected by trail construction. Wetland buffer mitigation may result in habitat improvements, although not necessarily within the study area (see the Critical Area Study [Parametrix 2015a]). Peregrine Falcon No peregrine falcon nests have been documented within 5 miles of the project area, and no potentially suitable nesting sites occur within 1 mile, so it Is extremely unlikely that construction noise would disturb any nesting falcons. If any falcons are foraging in the area while construction activities are underway, their feeding activities could be disrupted by increased levels of noise and human activity. Such effects would be temporary and localized, and additional foraging habitat is available nearby. Pileated Woodpecker No large trees or snags that provide potential nesting or foraging sites for pileated woodpeckers would be removed for trail construction. If any birds are present while construction activities are underway, their breeding or feeding activities could be disrupted by increased levels of noise and human activity. Such effects would be temporary and localized,however, and would not be expected to result in any long-term effects. Anril7ms I cca_i i_nna n 11 Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County Townsend's Big -eared Bat Project activities would not be likely to disturb any nursery colonies of Townsend's big -eared bats because no caves or abandoned buildings occur in the study area, and the structures in the area are unlikely to provide suitable roosting sites. 4.2 Operational Effects As described above in the discussion of effects during construction, nearly all areas that would be permanently affected by trail development currently consist of hardened surfaces or non-native plants. Trail maintenance would consist of occasional trimming of plants that may impede trail use, and would not be expected to result in any substantial long-term effects on vegetation communities or the suitability of wildlife habitat in the study area. The existing trail currently receives low levels of use for walking, running, bicycling, pet exercise, and bird -watching. These uses would continue on the improved trail, likely at moderate levels; rates of use would be increased by additional foot and bicycle traffic from persons traveling the length of the Lake to Sound Trail. Increased use of the trail poses an elevated risk of disturbance to sensitive wildlife species, particularly bald eagles and great blue herons. In addition, the increased presence of domestic dogs along the trail could result in negative effects on local wildlife populations through direct predation, disruption of breeding activity, or introduction of diseases and parasites. Also, some urban -adapted species may be attracted into the area by trash left by trail users. Some of these species, such as crows and jays, may prey on eggs and nestlings of sensitive species, including great blue herons. The following paragraphs address the potential for these factors to result in adverse effects on sensitive wildlife species within and near the study area. Great blue herons that nest in the Black River Riparian Forest colony may be particularly sensitive to disturbance from trail use and associated activities. The sensitivity of great blue herons to human disturbance, and the consequences of such disturbance, are discussed in Section 3.4.2. Changes in trail use patterns (i.e., an increase in the number and frequency of trail users) would increase the potential for disturbance of nesting, foraging, and resting herons. The potential for disturbance to nesting herons would be minimized (but not eliminated) by the distance of the trail from the nesting area (the area most recently used for nesting is more than 600 feet from the trail alignment at its nearest point). In addition, existing vegetation provides visual screening to varying degrees along the entire alignment. Even during winter, when branches are bare, no nests are visible from the trail alignment. As noted above, however, it is possible that trail users could be visible to herons flying into and out of the nesting colony. The potential for disturbance may be further reduced by planting trees and shrubs along the south side of the trail where existing trailside vegetation does not fully block views of the trail alignment from the heron nesting colony (as noted above, no nests are visible from the trail, but herons might be able to see the trail from the nesting area). As suggested by Gebauer and Moul (2001), additional vegetation in these areas would provide additional visual screening, reducing the likelihood of herons being frightened from their nests. Any new plantings would not provide additional screening immediately, but screening would increase gradually as the mixed plantings of evergreen trees, deciduous trees, and shrubs (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) grow taller and more dense. The location of most of the trail alignment at the edge of the forest, adjacent to currently developed areas, reduces the likelihood that nesting birds would perceive trail use as a new disturbance. The easternmost 500 feet of the alignment, which passes through an area with forest cover on both sides, is separated from the great blue heron colony site by more than 1,300 feet of dense vegetation. The visual 4-10 April 2015 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County and auditory screening provided by the distance and vegetation would essentially eliminate the potential for use of that portion of the trail to disturb nesting herons. Because the proposed trail route skirts the edge of the Black River Riparian Forest, persons using the trail would not likely be perceived by nesting herons as approaching a nest site. Generally, wildlife exhibit a stronger response to humans that approach them directly and to humans located off designated trails (MacArthur et al. 1982, Moen et al. 1982, Knight and Cole 1995, Miller et al. 2001). Burger et al. (2010) found that birds are able to assess relative danger by determining whether a person is approaching directly, as opposed to approaching tangentially (as would be the case at this location). Trail users would remain at least 600 feet from identified nest trees, further reducing the potential for disturbance. For the same reason, it is unlikely that raccoons and other mammalian predators would be attracted into the nesting area by trash left by trail users. Even if increased use leads to an increase in trash accumulation along the trail alignment, there is no assurance that such an increase would attract more mammals to the area, or that any animals would subsequently travel into the nesting area and prey on herons. Avian predators (e.g., crows and jays), on the other hand, may be more likely than mammals to be attracted to the trail area, and from there to the nesting colony. It is possible that increased use of the trail could pose an elevated risk of trail users wandering into the nesting area and disturbing nesting herons. The potential for trail users to be attracted into the nesting area is minimized by existing vegetation, which obscures views into the nesting area. Even during winter, when branches are bare, no nests are visible from the trail alignment. The vast majority of trail users are expected to be in the area for trail -based recreation. The presence of dense undergrowth along many portions of the trail alignment would likely discourage such users from venturing off the trail toward the colony. Persons interested in observing herons would be more likely to use existing viewing areas accessible via Oakesdale Avenue SW. Determined explorers may not be discouraged by these factors, however. If an overall increase in trail use results in an increase in the number of such persons in the area, the risk of disturbance to nesting herons would similarly increase. The planting of additional vegetation to reduce the potential for visual disturbance of nesting herons would also help discourage trail users from straying off the trail. Lastly, the planned installation of fencing and sgnage on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest would further reduce the potential for incursions into the nesting area. Based on recommendations from USFWS (2007), non -motorized recreational activities more than 330 feet from active nests are unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles. The entire alignment is more than 330 feet from any current or historical bald eagle nest sites. ,n,r I ere ,r„ nne Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 5. MITIGATION The Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project would avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife by proceeding in accordance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established by NEPA and other statutes and policies. According to implementation regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20, the definition of mitigation is as follows: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on designing the project to include measures and features that avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife. King County would consult with WDFW and/or the City of Renton to determine appropriate measures to minimize anticipated effects. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, WSDOT and/or King County would consult with USFWS to identify ways of minimizing harm to migratory birds. The following measures have been incorporated into the trail design in order to avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife: • Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area. • Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads and disturbed areas (see Section 1.3, Project Area and Setting) to minimize disturbance of adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species that use these areas. • Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening would occur toward the perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat. • Minimizing earthwork. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. • Planting of trees. Where the trail runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, native trees and shrubs will be planted along the south side of the trail to provide additional visual screening of the trail from the central portion of the natural area to the south (Appendix B). As these plants grow taller and more dense, they will reduce the potential for trail use to disturb nesting herons. Plantings will be monitored to ensure establishment and long-term success. • Fencing. Fencing will be placed on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in areas that appear inviting, to discourage people from accessing the central portion of the natural area. Vegetation planted for visual screening will further discourage incursions. Other wildlife viewing trails are provided on the south side of the forest. Wayfinding signage at Naches Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW, and Monster Road will describe the options. Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County The following measures would be implemented before and during trail construction to avoid or minimize effects on vegetation and wildlife resources. These strategies would be implemented along with others designed to avoid or minimize effects on other resources, such as streams, wetlands, and soils. Those strategies would be expected to provide additional protection to vegetation and wildlife resources within and adjacent to streams and wetlands. • Limit construction activity to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. • Prepare and implement a revegetation plan that emphasizes the use of native species as appropriate. • Where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, replace all cleared trees larger than 6 inches in diameter that occur outside critical area buffers with new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Include some larger evergreen trees to offset the temporal loss of canopy cover. If City of Renton regulatory requirements result in a higher replacement ratio, the higher ratio will be used. Note that planting for visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this requirement. • To minimize harm to migratory birds, conduct vegetation clearing and construction activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through August 31. • Prevent disturbance of nesting great blue herons and their young due to trail construction and other noise -generating activities by implementing the following measure: Within 1,312 feet of the Black River heron nesting colony, conduct activities that are likely to disturb nesting herons outside of sensitive periods (i.e., restrictions would apply between January 15 and August 31). Restricted activities would include major earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand tools would not be restricted. If bald eagles construct a new nest within 660 feet of the trail alignment before construction begins, additional measures, such as timing restrictions on construction activities with the potential to disturb nesting eagles, may be necessary. 5.2 Restoration of Temporary Effects All areas temporarily affected by construction would be restored to pre -construction conditions and re- planted or seeded with native species. Note that this is a minimum measure; additional planting for mitigation may occur in some areas, as described in Section 5.1. 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation King County has developed a plan for habitat improvement and restoration to mitigate project -related effects on wetland buffers and stream buffers. All unavoidable impacts to wetland and stream buffers would be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090) and City of Tukwila critical areas regulations (TMC 18.44 and 18.45). Details of the mitigation plan are provided in the critical area study prepared for this project (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized in the paragraphs below. The mitigation plan is also provided as Appendix B to this report. 5-2 Anril 7n15 I SSA-1591-MA Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County The mitigation plan focuses on providing compensatory mitigation for riparian buffer and wetland buffer impacts at equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. The mitigation sites would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. The proposed mitigation sites are located near the proposed trail alignment but outside of the trail right-of-way, within the Black River Riparian Forest natural area (Appendix B). The first site (Mitigation Site 1) was selected because (1) it overlaps the buffers of potentially affected wetlands and the Black River (2) it is dominated by invasive species, and (3) it is large enough to accommodate all of the project's wetland buffer mitigation needs at a single location. The second site (Mitigation Site 2) was selected because it is within the buffer of the Black River and is adjacent to the trail. Currently proposed Mitigation Site 1 is being used as a natural area and is part of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation Site 2 is on the sloped banks of the Black River at the western end of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation for wetland and stream buffer impacts would consist of planting or underplanting native trees and shrubs in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on buffer resources by maintaining or enhancing those functions that support water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Proposed enhancements would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of organic soil amendments (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. To supplement the mitigation planting described above, additional mitigation would be provided for tree removal where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in the City of Renton. In that area, all trees larger than 6 inches in diameter would be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Tree planting would occur within or near Mitigation Sites 1 and 2. Planting for visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see below) could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this commitment. In addition to the habitat improvements described above, native trees and shrubs would be planted along approximately 250 feet of the trail to provide additional visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony. These additional plantings would be located west of the nesting colony, where views toward the colony are not already obscured by existing vegetation. The plantings would consist of both evergreen and deciduous trees to block views, as well as densely growing shrubs to discourage pedestrians from venturing off the trail. The plantings would include seedlings along with some more mature evergreens, to offset some of the temporal loss of canopy cover. Such plantings, combined with fence installation along the southern edge of the alignment of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, are expected to reduce the potential for disturbance to wildlife in the natural area. The City of Tukwila does not specify required compensatory mitigation ratios for impacts to wetland buffers or stream buffers. Impacts to wetland buffers and stream buffers are generally replaced at a ratio of 1:1. The Black River Riparian Forest falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program, which specifies a replacement ratio of 1:1 for impacts to wetland buffers. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter that are removed within sensitive areas or shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila would be replaced as prescribed by TMC requirements. .__.i,n,r I rr, ,r„ nn. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County 6. REFERENCES Anderson, C. 2011. Personal communication of February 9, 2011. Wildlife biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. Audubon Society. 2011. Database search of Christmas Bird Count data for the Seattle and Kent -Auburn survey areas, 2000-2010. Available at: http://birds.audubon.org/historical-results. Accessed September 19, 2011. Azerrad, J.M. 2012. Great Blue Heron. Pages 3-1 through 3-18. In E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, C. Jenkins, and F. Lesser. 2010. Effect of approaching boats on nesting black skimmers: using response distances to establish protective buffer zones. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:102-108. Butler, R.W. 1997. The great blue heron. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 184 pp. Chatwin, T., T. Dunlop, and R. Joy. 2009. Pacific great blue heron population and monitoring: Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands 2007 and 2008. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR 119.43 pp. City of Vancouver Parks and Recreation. 2006. Stanley Park heronry management plan. Vancouver, British Columbia. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Great Blue Heron fannini subspecies Ardea herodias fannini in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentlD=1614. Accessed June 7, 2013. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Gebauer, M.B. and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report Number 102. Hamilton, M. 2013. Personal communication ofJanuary 15, 2013. Wildlife photographer, Issaquah, Washington. nnril c 1 1 11_ 1QA c � Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County Hays, D.W. and R. Milner. 2004. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Jackson, S.D. 2003. Ecological considerations in the design of river and stream crossings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University. 10 pp. Johnson, R.E. and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Mammals of Washington state: location data and modeled distributions. Washington State GAP Analysis, Volume 3. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Seattle, Washington. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil (managing directors). 2001. Wildlife -habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Jones, L.L.C., W.P. Leonard, and D.H. Olson, eds. 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 227 pp. Kenyon, J.K. 2005. Behaviours influencing the distribution of the Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias fannini) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. MSc Thesis, Simon Fraser University. 97 pp. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreation. Pages 51-69 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Lewis, J.C. and J.M. Azerrad. 2003. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R. H. Johnson. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132. Moen, A. N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton. 1982. Effects of disturbance by snowmobiles on heart rate of captive white-tailed deer. New York Fish and Game Journal 29: 474-488. Opperman, H., K.M. Cassidy, T. Aversa, E.S. Hunn, and B. Senturia. 2006. Sound to Sage: Breeding Bird Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas Counties, Washington. Published at: http://www.soundtosage.org by the Seattle Audubon Society. Version 1.1, September 2006. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A: Final Critical Area Study. April, 2015. Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A: Stream Discipline Report. Seattle, Washington. 6-2 Aori 12015 1 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County Quinn, T. and R. Milner. 2004. Great Blue Heron. Pages 3-1 through 3-7. In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Stenberg, K. 2007. The Black River Heron Colony: An Annotated History. Quailcroft Environmental Services, Sammamish, Washington. Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 92 pp. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. May 2007. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/guidelines/disturbnestingbaeaLhtml. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Information, Planning, and Conservation System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed January 16, 2015. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service critical habitat mapper. Available at: http:// http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed February 2, 2015. Vennesland, R.G. 2000. The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on the breeding decisions and productivity of the Great Blue Heron in south -coastal British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Vennesland, R.G. and R.W. Butler. 2004. Factors influencing Great Blue Heron nesting productivity on the Pacific coast of Canada from 1998 to 1999. Waterbirds 27: 289-296. Watson, J.W. and E.A. Rodrick. 2004. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed February 2, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2014. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011. Priority habitats and species maps and data for the vicinity of Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 1 East. Received on February 16, 2011. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Washington Natural Heritage Program GIS data. Olympia, Washington. Anril 1111C 1 CCA_1CThfl A Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report King County Woodruff, K. and H. Ferguson. 2005. Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). In J.M. Azerrad, editor. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2010. Ethnobotany and cultural resources. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/CulRes/ethnobotony.htm. Accessed December 28, 2010. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2013. Biological assessment preparation advanced training manual. Version 02-2013. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm. Accessed February 20, 2013. 6-4 Anril 2015 1 554-1521-0R4 Appendix A Bird Species Likely to Occur in the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Study Area Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A The following bird species are known or expected to breed within or near the project area, based on data from the Breeding Bird Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas Counties, Washington (Opperman et al. 2006). Bold font indicates species that are known or expected to breed in the nine -square -mile survey block that contains the project area; the other species are known or expected to breed in adjacent survey blocks. Ducks, Geese, Swans (Family Anatidae) Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) Green -winged Teal (Anas carolinensis) Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) Cinnamon Teal (Arras yanoptera) Blue -winged Teal (Arras discors) Mallard (Anal platyrhynchos) Gadwall (Anas strepera) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) Common Merganser (Magus merganser) Ruddy Duck (O. yura jamaicensis) Pheasants, Fowl & Allies (Family Phasianidae) Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) New World Quail (Family Odontophoridae) California Quail (Callipepla calzfornica) Grebes (Family Podicipedidae) Pied -billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) Herons, Bitterns (Family Ardeidae) Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Green Heron (Butorides virescens) Kites, Hawks, Eagles (Family Accipitridae) Cooper's Hawk (Acapiter cooperiz) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteojamaicensis) Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Rails, Crakes, Coots (Family Rallidae) American Coot (Fulica americana) Sora (Porzana carolina) Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) Plovers (Family Charadriidae) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Sandpipers, Snipes (Family Scolopacidae) Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius) Pigeons, Doves (Family Columbidae) Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) Band -tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Hummingbirds (Family Trochilidae) Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) Kingfishers (Family Alcedinidae) Belted Kingfisher (Megaceyle alcyon) Woodpeckers (Family Picidae) Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) Downy Woodpecker (Picoidespubescens) Red -breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus Tuber) Tyrant Flycatchers (Family Tyrannidae) Pacific -slope Flycatcher (Empidonax d cilis) Vireos, Greenlets (Family Vireonidae) Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) Hutton's Vireo (Vireo button) Crows, Jays (Family Corvidae) American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Steller's Jay (Cyanocitta steam) Swallows, Martins (Family Hirundinidae) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Violet -green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) Tits, Chickadees (Family Paridae) Black -capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) Chestnut -backed Chickadee (Poecile rufescens) Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report A-1 June 2013 SSQ 9951 nsm /d/9Tznnfl Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Bushtits (Family Aegithalidae) Bushtit (Psaltriparus minims) Nuthatches, Wallcreeper (Family Sittidae) Red -breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) Wrens (Family Troglodytidae) Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris) Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickir) Thrushes (Family Turdidae) Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) American Robin (Turdus migratorius) Starlings (Family Sturnidae) European Starling (Stumus vulgaris) Waxwings & Allies (Family Bombycillidae) Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrurum) New World Warblers (Family Parulidae) Yellow Warbler (Dendrnica petechia) Common Yellowthroat (Geoth/ypis trichas) Wilson's Warbler (lt/ilsoniapusilla) Tanagers & Allies (Family Thraupidae) Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) Buntings, New World Sparrows & Allies (Family Emberizidae) Song Sparrow (Melospisa melodia) Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) White -crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) Grosbeaks, Saltators & Allies (Family Cardinalidae) Black -headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) New World Blackbirds (Family Icteridae) Red -winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) Bullock's Oriole (Icterus bullockir) Brown -headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) Finches (Family Fringillidae) Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) House Finch (Catpodacus mexicanus) Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) Old World Sparrows, Snowfinches (Family Passeridae) House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) Vegetation and IVildlife Discipline Report A-2 June 2013 Kina County 554-1251-084 to /2T300D) Ccmrnurty Development Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Stream Discipline Report Prepared for King County LAI King County 4 April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report Prepared for King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 1.2 PROJECT FEATURES 1-5 1.3 PROJECT AREA AND SETTING 1-5 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1-6 2. METHODOLOGY 2-1 2.1 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 2-1 2.2 STUDIES AND COORDINATION 2-1 2.2.1 Review of Existing Information 2-1 2.2.2 Field Investigation 2-1 2.2.3 Regulations 2-2 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1 STUDY AREA 3-1 3.2 GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN SUMMARY 3-1 3.3 GREEN RIVER 3-2 3.3.1 Stream Type 3-2 3.3.2 Fish Habitat 3-2 3.3.3 Water Quality Conditions 3-2 3.3.4 Biological Conditions 3-2 3.4 BLACK RIVER 3-4 3.4.1 Stream Type 3-4 3.4.2 Fish Habitat 3-4 3.4.3 Water Quality Conditions 3-4 3.4.4 Biological Conditions 3-5 3.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 3-5 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 4.1 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 4-1 4.1.1 Permanent Effects 4-1 4.1.2 Temporary Effects 4-2 4.2 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS 4-2 5. MITIGATION 5-1 5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 5-1 5.2 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY EFFECTS 5-1 5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 5-2 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6. REFERENCES 6-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Vicinity Map 1-3 4-1 Stream Buffer Impacts 4-5 APPENDICES A Site Photographs Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County ACRONYMS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act DBH diameter at breast height Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration HPA Hydraulic Project Approval LWD large woody debris OHWM ordinary high water mark NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PHS Priority Habitats and Species RM river mile SMP Shoreline Master Program TESC temporary erosion and sediment control WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 1. INTRODUCTION This discipline report is intended to provide information in support of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Environmental Classification Summary form for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documented Categorical Exclusion process, assist project planning, and facilitate permitting. This report describes streams and aquatic resources in the area of a proposed 1.2-mile non - motorized trail, which includes two fish -bearing streams. This report also evaluates potential impacts to streams and stream buffers from the proposed project, and presents avoidance and minimization measures included in the project design and conceptual mitigation for unavoidable impacts. 1.1 Project Overview King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, WSDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what would ultimately be the 16 mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across a proposed non -motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (Figure 1-1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, would be part of a Regional Trail System that provides non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non - motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A would provide a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila, and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A would connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. Earn a kepuno8 Apo m m 0 0 < 91 C CD 3 c o Ain 'Ijuno3 m N cn 0 Path: U:\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\GIS\MapDocs\March2015\Vic-8x11fip Apr2015.mxd Fir 1 : A 1a \reW co 0 co n CD I, I TT C II �Z �% N 0 i O • �46 13 0 0 j C o m _ N —I Naches Ave SW • \ y CO -1 ZJ o (D 22, °.• a IC fif a easy L_ 1 Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 1.2 Project Features Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft -surface (gravel) shoulders • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.72 acre outside the proposed trail footprint) • Performing ground improvements, which will disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre in addition to other disturbances from the trail • Constructing a new non -motorized pedestrian bridge, including abutments, over the Black River, northeast of Monster Road, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use • Installing a pedestrian -actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Installing one box culvert for terrestrial habitat enhancement • Building retaining walls near the south approach to Monster Road, north of the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River,, and on either side of the box culvert • Installing split -rail fencing and plantings to discourage incursions into sensitive areas and to improve visual screening for sensitive wildlife • Constructing two approximately 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the Black River pump station) 1.3 Project Area and Setting The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor (see Figure 1-1). Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north -south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east -west bearing. These tracks tie into the north -south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to the new pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road (approximately 4,100 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest (see the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A: Vegetation and Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County Wildlife Discipline Report [Parametrix 2015a] for a more detailed description of the Black River Riparian Forest and the wildlife communities it supports). The gravel maintenance road is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low -growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a proposed new non -motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. 1.4 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non motorized transportation corridor and multi -use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW in Renton and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. Segment A would provide non -motorized access to recreation and employment centers and complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards will safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. Completion of Segment A would provide the following benefits: • Serve local and regional non -motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. • Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. • Provide a critical link in the Regional Trails System. • Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Methods of Analysis This study is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts was to document existing information to reflect current site conditions and to collect new information to assess potential impacts. Potential impacts on fish and aquatic resources were calculated by overlaying the proposed design onto the project base maps showing wetland, stream and buffer locations. Affected areas were determined as the area of overlap of the two sets. In some areas, multiple impact types (e.g., stream buffer and wetland buffer) were present in a single location. In this document, all stream and riparian buffer impacts are reported, although for purposes of compensatory mitigation, overlapping impacts were assigned based on the following hierarchy: wetland, stream (below ordinary high water mark [OHWM]), wetland buffer, and stream buffer impacts. 2.2 Studies and Coordination 2.2.1 Review of Existing Information Prior to conducting fieldwork, Parametrix reviewed maps and materials including, but not limited to: • Priority Habitats and Species data (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] 2015a) • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program database • Salmonscape database (WDFW 2015b) • A catalog of Washington streams and .salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region (Williams et al. 1975) • Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 (Green/Duwamish River) Limiting Factors Analysis (Kerwin and Nelson 2000) 2.2.2 Field Investigation The information on streams and aquatic habitat presented within this report is based primarily on the results of site investigations conducted by project biologists. The stream surveys characterized the project area streams within and immediately adjacent to the project right-of-way. The stream investigation involved qualitative evaluations of instream habitat features, riparian vegetation, streambank stability, and fish passage obstructions within the study area (where right -of -entry allowed access). Field investigations within the Segment A project area occurred on February 1, 2011. Selected site photographs are presented in Appendix A. In addition, coordination occurred with the authors of the wetland discipline report and critical area study for this project (Parametrix 2011, 2015b), who also collected available information on ecological resources and performed field studies. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 2.2.3 Kegula-ions Streams associated with the project (Green River and Black River) in the City of Tukwila (west of the railroad bridges) are regulated under TMC 18.44, while in the City of Renton (east of the railroad bridges), the Black River and all of the Black River Riparian Forest is regulated under RMC 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program [SMP] Regulations). Land use permits will be required by the cities. Streams, wetlands, and other sensitive resources in the project vicinity are also subject to federal and state regulations. The information in this report is intended to facilitate project planning and to support acquisition of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the WDFW, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as necessary. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section describes existing conditions of the streams and buffers within the study area, as well as the overall site conditions. A total of two streams (Black River and Green River) and six wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 6) (see the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Critical Area Study [Parametrix 2015b] for detailed wetland descriptions) are located within the Segment A project area. Surface water runoff from the concrete recycling plant north of the project area drains under the BNSF railroad tracks and then across the existing gravel maintenance road to Wetland 3. The water has eroded a short channel through the existing gravel and then sheet flows over the wetland, where much of the water infiltrates. (As part of the trail project, a drainage culvert would be constructed to convey this runoff under the trail (Figure 1-1).) 3.1 Study Area The study area for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A stream investigation is defined as the area within 200 feet of the Black and Green Rivers, from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Forest, across Monster Road arid under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see Figure 1-1). The study area also includes the Black River Riparian Forest, which is designated as a Shoreline under the City of Renton code. The following sections describe the aquatic habitat and species within the study area. This includes an overview of general site characteristics and descriptions of individual streams and aquatic habitat areas, as well as fish distribution and habitat use in each stream. 3.2 Green/Duwamish River Basin Summary The project site is located within WRIA 9, the Green-Duwamish River basin. The Duwamish River is defined as the portion of the Green/Duwamish River system downstream from the confluence of the Black River (River Mile [RM] 11.0) to Elliott Bay (RM 0.0), while the Green River extends upstream from the Black River. For this report, the term 'Duwamish River' pertains to the first 11 miles of the river system, while the term 'Green River' pertains to both the portion of river above RM 11.0 and the river system as a whole. Historically, the Green, White, Black, and Cedar Rivers flowed into the Duwamish River, and the system drained an area of over 1,600 square miles. In the early 1900s, the Black, White, and Cedar Rivers were diverted, reducing the Green River drainage over 60 percent to just 483 square miles (Blomberg 1988). Also, in 1913 the City of Tacoma constructed a diversion dam on the Green River, near the town of Palmer, at about RM 50.0. In 1963, the Howard Hansen Dam was built at RM 53.0. Both of these structures completely blocked fish migration to the upper Green River and its tributaries. Flow in the Green River is regulated by the operation of the Howard Hanson Dam. River velocities are dissipated as the river widens and currents converge with tidal pressures. Characterized by wet and dry seasons, discharge of the river varies seasonally. The wet season extends from November to July, and the dry season from August to October. The mean monthly flow rate in the lower Duwamish varies from 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August to 2,600 cfs in January. Stream banks are sloped and diked to contain flows of up to 11,000 cfs (Williams et al. 1975). According to the Federal Emergency Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County Management Agency (FEMA), the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. The Lower Green River basin begins at the Auburn Narrows (RM 31) and continues to just downstream of the confluence with the Black River in Tukwila (RM 11). The lower Green River basin is composed of two areas that are split by the Black River basin to the north and the Mill Creek basin to the south. It is mostly on the urban side of the urban growth boundary and contains portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, and SeaTac. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural, as well as some major highways, including Interstate 5. There are extensive areas of office/commercial and multi -family residential development. This area has developed rapidly over the past 20 years. 3.3 Green River 3.3.1 Stream Type The project alignment intersects the Green River at about RM 11.0 on the right bank of the river (see Figure 1-1). According to the WDNR stream typing system, the Green River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, which also classifies the Green River as a Type S stream. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. 3.3.2 Fish Habitat Identified limiting habitat factors in the lower Green River watershed include (1) urbanization, water diversions, and revetments that have resulted in disconnection of the river from floodplain off -channel habitats such as sloughs and adjacent wetlands, (2) reduction of large woody debris and associated instream complexity, such as pools and riffles, (3) creation of adult salmon migration problems due to low flows, (4) chronic water quality problems, and (5) severe reductions in riparian habitats and associated functions (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Currently, the reach within the study area is used by all native anadromous salmonid species for rearing and migration. 3.3.3 Water Quality Conditions The Green River has no listed exceedances on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list within or immediately adjacent to the project limits (Ecology 2015). A 303(d) reach is located over 0.5 mile upstream from the project area, with recorded exceedances for stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform. 3.3.4 Biological Conditions Fish Presence The Duwamish and lower Green Rivers serve as a migration and rearing area for anadromous salmonids, with no spawning habitat available (Williams et al. 1975). Three Pacific salmon species inhabit the Green/Duwamish River basin in significant numbers: Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County kisutch), and chum (0. keta) salmon. Pink (O. gorbuscha) and sockeye (O. nerka) salmon may occasionally be seen in the Green River basin, but the Green River is primarily a chum, coho, and Chinook salmon stream (Williams et al. 1975). Although sockeye salmon are occasionally seen in streams that are not tributaries to lakes, sockeye almost always require a rearing lake below or near their spawning area (Foerster 1972). Other anadromous fish using these waters include steelhead (O. mykiss), sea -run cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Studies of juvenile salmonids in the Duwamish and lower Green River (Williams et al. 1975; Weitkamp and Campbell 1980; Weitkamp and Schadt 1982; Warner and Fritz 1995) have demonstrated the species presence, their timing within the project vicinity, and various characteristics of the fish. These investigations show that subyearling Chinook and chum salmon use shallow -water shoreline habitats of various characteristics during their migration to the ocean. Juvenile pink salmon are likely to be found in the same areas during their spring migration period. The young salmon appear to prefer relatively protected shorelines with gradual slopes and depths of less than about 6 feet. However, they are also found along hard, steep to vertical substrates that are either natural or man-made. The young salmon tend to remain close to the shoreline but apparently cross deep water at night (Stober et al. 1973; Bax et al. 1979). Yearling Chinook, steelhead, and coho also use shoreline areas but appear to be less shoreline -oriented than the subyearling migrants. The substantially larger yearlings are commonly found in the near - surface water well away from the shoreline. Subadult and adult bull trout and Dolly Varden are likely to forage within the project vicinity during their late spring to summer migrations into Puget Sound. Juvenile salmon migrating past the project site include Chinook produced from the Soos Creek Hatchery, located about 39 miles upstream from the site. The juvenile migration period potentially extends from late February through mid -June. During this period, wild fish commonly occur further upstream and are more numerous in tributaries, compared to hatchery fish. Stream Buffer Conditions Overstory riparian vegetation on the right bank of the river is generally limited to a relatively narrow (20 to 50 feet wide) zone with a sparse overstory of deciduous and coniferous trees. Trees include scattered Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and nonnative alder (Alnus spp.) and spruce (Picea spp.) species. Understory vegetation consists primarily of shrubs, with sumac (Rhus spp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and substantial amounts of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Invasive vegetation dominates the outer portion of the riparian zone, including a large amount of Himalayan blackberry and various grass species. A single line of ornamental trees is present on the south edge of the riparian zone, directly adjacent to Fort Dent Park. In addition, portions of the riparian zone consist of patches of bare ground. The vegetation is not adequate to provide the full range of riparian functions, although low to moderate levels of stream shading, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, leaf litter production, and bank stability are provided by the existing riparian zone. Much of the shrub vegetation overhangs the river, offering some overhead cover for fish. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 3.4 Black River 3.4.1 Stream Type According to the WDNR stream typing system, the Black River is a Type S stream, designated as a shoreline of the state. Within the project area, the stream is located within the local jurisdictions of the Cities of Tukwila and Renton (see Figure 1-1), although the majority of the Black River is within Renton. Within Renton, the Black River is classified as a Class 1 water (shoreline of the state) (RMC 4-3-090F.1). The regulated buffer within shoreline jurisdictional (the Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer width) includes lands within 100 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the OHWM. Within Tukwila, the stream is classified as a Type S (shoreline of the state) stream. The regulated shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the river OHWM. According to Tukwila SMP (Section 7.7), "the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high watermark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed." The remaining 75 feet landward of the buffer is also regulated under the Tukwila SMP. 3.4.2 Fish Habitat The Black River enters the Green River near Tukwila, on the right bank, at RM 11.0. On the Black River, a dam and pump station, which is approximately 600 feet upstream of Monster Road, prevent tidal upstream inundation of the river channel and maintain downstream flow, regardless of tidal influences. A Denil fishway allows upstream fish passage at the pump station, and an air lift pump arrangement aids downstream migrants in passing the structure during the spring months (Harza 1995). The project site is located in a developed setting, zoned industrial, with large amounts of impervious surface within the project vicinity. A large gravel pit (Stoneway Concrete) is located north of the Monster Road Bridge, warehouses and an industrial operation are located to the north and south of the trail alignment, and railroad tracks run both parallel and perpendicular to the trail alignment. Instream habitat within the project area is dominated by run -type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths of greater than 6 feet. At the time of the site visit (February 2011), the wetted width was approximately 25 feet, and no pools or riffles were observed. Bank -full width was estimated at 30 feet. Streambed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a 50-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. Underneath the Monster Road Bridge, both streambanks are 100 percent armored with riprap, from the edge of the water to the bridge deck. No LWD was observed in the study area, and the presence of the pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Within the study area, the Black River would probably be used for migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is somewhat limited. 3.4.3 Water Quality Conditions The Black River from RM 0.25 to 1.44 is on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list for exceeding the fecal coliform criteria (Ecology 2015). This exceedance includes the reach of the Black River between Monster Road Bridge and the Black River pump station. Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Stream Discipline Report King County 3.4.4 Biological Conditions Fish Presence WDFW (2015a, b) data indicate that Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout all have been documented in the Black River within the study area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area, and recent information, as well as historical records (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975), indicate that Chinook do not use this area for spawning and rearing. However, very small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River pump station (the pump station cannot pass adult salmon downstream). In the fall of 1997, adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River, and there have been no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 1998). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by this species (Harza 1995; Rieman and Chandler 1999). Stream Buffer Conditions The stream buffers of the Black River within the project area are relatively degraded, of limited widths, and composed primarily of herbaceous, shrub, and nonnative species. Downstream of Monster Road Bridge, the width of the vegetated buffer ranges between 50 and 100 feet on the north side of the river and about 75 to 150 feet on the south side. Upstream of the bridge, the width of the vegetated averages from 100 to 150 feet on both sides of the Black River. The vegetated buffer consists of lightly forested and herbaceous plant communities, although the forested zone is restricted to within 50 feet of the river. Vegetation includes red alder (Alnus rubra), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, western redcedar, western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or LWD recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. 3.5 Special Status Species Three fish species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur within the project area. ESA -listed salmonid populations within the Green River and the Black River are the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit of Chinook salmon and the Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment. Also, small numbers of bull trout may be present within the mainstem Green River, although habitat conditions in the Black River would not support these species. No species that are candidates for listing under ESA are present in the study area; however, the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia population of coho salmon is listed as a species of concern by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries and is present in the study area Priority fish species include all State -listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, and candidate species, and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are considered vulnerable. No fish species with State candidate status occur in the study area. No State -listed sensitive, threatened, or endangered fish species occur in the study area. Coastal cutthroat trout, which are designated as priority species, may occur within the study area (WDFW 2015a). Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Construction Effects This section describes the extent and type of temporary and permanent effects on streams and aquatic resources that could occur as a result of construction activities associated with the proposed project. 4.1.1 Permanent Effects The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of any stream; therefore, the project would not result in any stream fill, nor would alterations to fish passage structures be required. Permanent effects on stream buffers would occur where the proposed trail alignment encroaches into currently vegetated areas within the regulatory buffers on the Green River and the Black River, including areas within the construction footprint for the proposed pedestrian bridge. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to permanent impacts would be approximately 31,641 square feet (0.73 acre) (Figures 4-1 through 4-5). Of this area, 0.13 acre (5,715 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.60 acre (25,926 square feet) of permanent impacts to riparian buffers. Further details on these impacts are provided in this project's Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015b). Permanent riparian buffer impacts would occur primarily along the Black River; approximately 2,400 square feet of the affected area would be within the Green River riparian buffer. In almost all cases, the quality of the riparian buffer that would be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Much of the riparian impact area along the Black River consists of grass or nonnative herbaceous and shrub species. The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. Approximately 51 trees within the regulatory buffer of the Black River in the City of Renton would be removed. All but one of these would be deciduous trees (48 cottonwoods, 1 red alder, and 1 willow). One coniferous tree (a 6-inch-diameter Douglas -fir within the clearing area for the proposed pedestrian bridge) would be removed. Twenty of the trees proposed for removal are between 6 inches and 10 inches in diameter. Eight trees are smaller than 6 inches, 13 trees would be between 10 and 16 inches, and 10 trees (all cottonwoods) are larger than 16 inches in diameter. Construction of the western portion of the trail corridor would remove 14 trees larger than 4 inches in diameter within riparian buffers in the City of Tukwila. The existing buffer functions are somewhat degraded, compared to fully forested conditions, and these functions are provided at a low or moderate level. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is urban, consisting primarily of the gravel surface of the existing maintenance road. Where the existing surface is not composed of gravel, a worn dirt trail exists and is largely free of trees and shrubs. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.9 acre and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the study area. Some low -growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy would be reduced in some places. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or process (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Stream Discipline Report King County pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) would result from permanent project - related clearing and no substantial effects on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams are anticipated. 4.1.2 Temp0-ary Effects Temporary impacts to stream buffers would occur from minor clearing and grading during project construction, as well as from potential erosion, sedimentation, and noise disturbance during construction. As previously discussed, there is some overlap between stream buffers and wetland buffers. The total amount of riparian buffer that would be subjected to temporary impacts would be 0.11 acre (5,312 square feet) (see Figures 4-2 through 4-5). Approximately 0.01 acre of this area (857 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and are identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes. For this analysis, therefore, the project would result in 0.10 acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impacts to riparian buffers. Further details on these impacts are provided in the project's Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015b). Temporary riparian buffer impacts would occur primarily within the Black River riparian buffer; approximately 560 square feet of the temporary impacts would be within the Green River riparian buffer. Because the portions of the affected buffer are degraded (as discussed above) and these riparian areas would be replanted once construction is complete, temporary clearing is not expected to have a substantial effect on stream habitat or fish resources in any of the project area streams. Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to project area streams could increase turbidity and total suspended solid levels. However, no earthwork or riparian clearing would occur within 25 feet of the OHWM of the Green River or below the OHWM of the Black River. Along most of the proposed trail corridor, no ground -disturbing work would take place within 40 feet of any streams. Furthermore, potential effects would be avoided through the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), including temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) and spill prevention control and countermeasures plans. 4.2 Operational Effects The primary potential for operational effects would be from increased stormwater runoff, which can negatively affect stream flows. Although the project would add some non -pollution generating impervious surface to the project area in the form of the paved trail, the wide buffer distance between the trail and the Black and Green Rivers would allow ample opportunity for stormwater runoff be infiltrated or intercepted before entering the waterbodies. Also, no inter -basin transfers of stormwater would occur (all stormwater would remain in the basin it originated in). Therefore, no impact to the hydrology of these streams, including base flow and peak flow, would result from operation of the project. The proposed project would not add any pollution -generating impervious surface within the project area; heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other contaminants commonly associated with roadway runoff would not be generated on the pedestrian and bike trail and, therefore, no changes in water quality of the project area streams would result. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River would be 109 feet long and 12 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river would be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 528 square feet of the river would be affected by shading from the bridge. Shade from overwater structures such as bridges can be a migration barrier for fish. Juvenile salmonids avoid dark, shaded areas under structures, resulting in loss of access to habitat, blockage of movement, and Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Stream Discipline Report King County potentially increased exposure to predators. In addition, shade from overwater structures can provide hiding cover for some non-native species, such as smallmouth bass, that prey on native fish. The Black River is not considered to be an important migratory corridor for salmonids because the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the study area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. In addition, reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are unlikely to provide suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon or high -quality spawning or rearing habitat for steelhead. Moreover, the narrow footprint and north - south orientation of the bridge (minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day) would further diminish the potential for the structure to cast shade that presents a migration barrier for any juvenile salmonids that may pass through the project action area. All bridge components spanning the Black River would be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits issued for the project. Per WAC 220-660-030, the HPA would include provisions designed to ensure no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life. Compliance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits would be expected to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects resulting from bridge construction. Any unavoidable impacts would be addressed through compensatory mitigation. City of Renton City of Tukwila I I cu d r co Pa ra m et rix DATE: April 13, 2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T300B4-1 CA1-B 0 600 Figure 4-1 Stream Buffer Impacts Green illy er Green River Trail , •••• •••• ....... ...••••••". _ - • ••- - _ _ 4kAk 4.0 sio, ii. .44, . -1,-.4 OZ. '..• ....-...;`..1.-.I.i..1,..."....-^e,",..--.....-17,-.."...,,,__-4.-40-`41....."•e...-da,,,,....-...!7- • I r .- 4,10...VA,. 0 ... ..7...4eV, AV ". a P. a ..1".. a I WI& ..WAV. g i 0 ';‘,. A .W+Ii. • ... . Ns, 4, . 44 . : , , v , 4 4"v. 4, 04 4 4 ,Ire• "4,7 1% b . . 1 , N.,' . • • • --,..,..4,.:.-•_-....444444;. 0 r 06 r 06 13G-F-06 r 6C—FC6—CC c _ en -e • 0 0 Black River 4 6. cow u 4- co I2 Parametrix DATE: April 13, 2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T300B_CA2-8-B Legend: 0 40 Wetland/Stream Buffer w w w Wetland Boundary Drainage - F - C c C C— u/ /// Fill Line Cut Line Existing Asphalt / A Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact • • a.• Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Figure 4-2 Stream Buffer Impacts -GRWFr— - r.- �- - .:R�ro ,1� - — --^-- 1 \ ' - \\\ V -.. ��,, ••-, 7ir,ir �s. ��� was C v. ' _ — O „ - I1 c CO - -I I---------- -_--- I AN_����'�•►T.�� ram-.-. OH Wm L z m r ea c St. 444 • )-`0 c I� Ic w A V) 0) t 10 Pa ram et rix DATE: April 13,2015 FILE: BL15210e4PAT3T300B_CA2-8-B Legend. 0 40 Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary —.-----..._-------- Drainage -c F F F— c c c— /1/ Fill Line Cut Line Existing Asphalt Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact . ❖ ,..... ►O❖..• Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Figure 4-3 Stream Buffer Impacts I(YY Y Y Y YI CO 0 OH-�WM1� OHWM MIgcr L CD I t_ ' m ID .;;sis,„%o:iiitHIN. .11, ow.. o V\O ``--�•2 [ ---- ...' �+ • _ — — X N a N Parametrix DATE: Apr 13,2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T300B_CA2-8-B Legend: 0 40 NI Wetland/Stream Buffer Wetland Boundary Drainage / -F F F F- Fill Line -c c c c— Cut Line Existing Asphalt \ ------------------------------------- Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact BNSF Railway Figure 4-4 Stream Buffer Impacts LAY Y V YY YI L. d c ---------- rm 0 B►`ISF Railway OHWM Black River Proposed Tsai[ on ExistingGravel Path Wetland 6 - W6-SP1 - W6-SP2 1 Estimated Buffer Parametrix DATE: April 13,2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T300B_CA2-8-B Legend: 0 40 Wetland/Stream Buffer ▪ Wetland Boundary Drainage F F F— c C C— /,/ /// Fill Line Cut Line Existing Asphalt I/%////, Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact Wetland Buffer Temporary Impact Air Ar r' T. - r+'a , ...+ter _- -- Stream Buffer Temporary Impact Wetland/Stream Buffer Permanent Impact Figure 4-5 Stream Buffer Impacts Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 5. MITIGATION The Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project would avoid and minimize impacts to streams by proceeding in accordance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established by the NEPA, the CWA, and other aquatic area protection programs. According to NEPA (40 CFR paragraphs 1508.20), the definition of mitigation is as follows: a. Avoiding the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on designing the project to include measures and features that avoid and minimize adverse effects on streams and stream buffers. The streams in the study area have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible and no permanent filling of streams is anticipated. King County would apply the following strategies to minimize stream and buffer impacts during the design, permitting, and construction phases: • Use a retaining wall to narrow the trail footprint in the vicinity of some riparian buffers. • Near streams and wetlands, limit earthwork to the dry season to reduce the potential for sediment runoff. • Construct the trail on an existing gravel maintenance road to minimize impacts to functioning riparian buffers. • Where feasible, widen the trail on the north side of the existing corridor to minimize impacts to riparian buffers and wildlife habitat. • Use appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs (e.g., mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric fencing; sediment traps) to reduce the risk of erosion and reduce or minimize the chance of sediments entering project waterbodies. • Prepare and implement a TESC plan for clearing or removing vegetation, grading, ditching, filling, excavating, and conducting embankment compaction to minimize and control pollution and erosion from all vegetation or ground -disturbing activities. 5.2 Restoration of Temporary Effects All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre -construction conditions or better through re- planting or seeding and would support a level of riparian function that is the same, or greater, than under existing conditions. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation King County has developed plans for habitat improvement and restoration to mitigate for project - related effects on stream buffers. All unavoidable impacts to stream buffers would be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090) and City of Tukwila critical areas regulations (TMC 18.44 and 18.45). Specific mitigation plans would be included in permit applications for construction of the project. The mitigation plans would focus on providing riparian buffer and wetland buffer mitigation that would provide equal or greater functions than were impacted. The mitigation site would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. Since the riparian buffer and wetland buffer impacts have some overlap, further details on the overall mitigation plan are provided in the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015b). Broadly, the riparian buffer component of the overall mitigation plan consists of planting native trees and shrubs within the regulated riparian buffer of a fish -bearing stream (the Black River). On -site mitigation (within the project area and regulated buffer of the Black River) was selected as the preferred option. Riparian mitigation would consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that would benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. In addition to the riparian buffer impact mitigation described above, additional mitigation would be provided for tree removal where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in the City of Renton. In that area, all trees larger than 6 inches in diameter would be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Planting for visual screening between the trail and the Black River heron nesting colony could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this commitment (Parametrix 2015a). In addition to mitigation requirements for displacement of buffers, enhancement of buffers is required by the provisions of RMC 4-10-095.F. Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sties. The proposed trail is categorized as a Major Alteration: Expansion of impervious surface by more than 25%. This provision requires the project to install site improvements that protect the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either: • Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required* buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or • An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required* setback and buffer. This requirement is met by a revegetation plan for areas between the trail and OHWM where the trail is within the 100 foot Vegetation Conservation Area of the Black River. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report King County 6. REFERENCES Bax, N. J., E.O. Salo, and B.P. Snyder. 1979. Salmonid outmigration studies in Hood Canal. Final report, phase VI. FRI-UW-7921, 89 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Wash., Seattle. Blomberg, G., C. Simenstad, and P. Hickey. 1988. Changes in Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. Pages 437-454 in Proceedings. First annual meeting on Puget Sound research. Volume 2. Prepared by the Puget Sound water quality authority. Seattle, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303[d] list). Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Accessed February 3, 2015. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303(d) list). Available at: < http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html>. Accessed on February 3, 2011. Foerster, R.E. 1972. The sockeye salmon. Bulletin 162. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 422 p. Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. Parametrix. 2011. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A: Wetland Discipline Report. October 2011. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A: Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. April 2015. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A: Critical Area Study. April 2015. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. Rieman, B.E. and G.L. Chandler. 1999. Empirical evaluation of temperature effects on bull trout distribution in the Northwest. Final Report, Contract No. 12957242-01-0. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. Stober, Q.J, S.J. Walden, and D.T. Griggs. 1973. Juvenile salmonid migration through Skagit Bay, pp.35- 70. In Ecological studies of proposed Kiket Island nuclear power site. Edited by Q.J. Stober and E.O. Salo. FRI-UW-7304. 537pp. Warner, E.J., and R.L. Fritz. 1995. The distribution and growth of Green River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) outmigrants in the Duwamish Estuary as a function of water quality and substrate. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington State salmonid stock inventory. Appendix: Bull trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 437 pp. Lake to Sound Trail—SegmentA Stream Discipline Report King County WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015a. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed January 16, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015b. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available online at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2015. Williams et al. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. Kerwin, J. and T. S. Nelson.. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island) Washington State Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. December 2000. Appendix A Site Photographs Lake to Sound Trail — Segment Photograph 1. View of left bank riparian vegetation along the Black. River, looking east from Fort Dent Park. Note presence of shrub vegetation and scattered small trees. Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species are also present. Photograph 2. View of proposed trail alignment, looking east from rear the Green River Trail. Note degraded understory riparian conditions and the lack of vegetated ground cover. The trees will be maintained in place, where feasible. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Photograph 3. View of riparian conditions on right bank of Black River, looking south from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. Note the presence of non-native vegetation and scarcity of mature trees. Photograph 4. View of existing gravel trail/proposed trail alignment, looking east from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. The Black River is on the right side of the photo and the Black River Pump station is in the background. Comrur ty Development Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County King County JAW April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County CERTIFICATION The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal, as a professional engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixed below. Prep d by Craig Buitrago, P.E. hecked by Julie Brandt, P.E. cam/ Approved by Jenny Bailey, Project Manager Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW 1-1 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT 1-1 1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 1-1 1.3 DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS 1-13 2. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS „ 2-1 3. OFFSITE ANALYSIS 3-1 3.1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS 3-1 3.2 RESOURCE REVIEW 3-1 3.3 FIELD INSPECTION 3-1 3.3.1 TDA 1 (A -Line Stations 1+00 to 14+82) 3-2 3.3.2 TDA 2 (C-Line Stations 201+11t0206+50) 3-2 3.3.3 TDA 3 (B-Line Stations 101+77 to 110+00) 3-2 3.3.4 TDA 4 (B-Line Stations 110+00 to 132+50) 3-3 3.3.5 TDA 5 (B-Line Stations 132+50 to 143+17) 3-3 3.4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS 3-3 3.5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS 3-3 4. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4-1 4.1 EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY (PART A) 4-1 4.2 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY (PART B) 4-1 4.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PART C) 4-2 4.3.1 Flow Control 4-2 4.3.2 Conveyance System 4-3 4.3.3 Water Quality Treatment 4-3 4.4 FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM (PART D) 4-3 4.5 WATER QUALITY (PART E) 4-4 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5-1 5.1 MONSTER ROAD STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS 5-1 5.2 TDA 3 CATCH BASIN 5-1 5.3 TDA 4 BOX CULVERT 5-1 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6-1 6.1 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS 6-1 6.2 STREAM DISCIPLINE REPORT 6-1 6.3 CRITICAL AREA STUDY (DRAFT) 6-1 6.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE DISCIPLINE REPORT (DRAFT) 6-1 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 7. OTHER PERMITS 7-1 8. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8-1 9. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 9-1 10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 10-1 11. REFERENCES 11-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 TIR Worksheet 1-2 1-2 Site Location 1-10 1-3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics 1-11 1-4 Soils 1-12 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Effective Impervious Area Comparison 1-14 2-1 Summary of Core and Special Requirements 2-1 4-1 Comparison of Peak Runoff Rates 4-4 APPEN DICES A Project Design Drawings B Land Cover Area Calculations C Offsite Analysis - Resource Review and Site Visit Photos D KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation E Box Culvert Design Calculations F Grading Within the Floodplain - Cut and Fill Calculations G King County Surface Water Design Manual Operation and Maintenance Excerpts Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADS Advanced Drainage Systems BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe cfs cubic feet per second CSWPPP construction stormwater pollution prevention plan EIA effective impervious area FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS geographic information system KCRTS King County Runoff Time Series KCSWDM King County Surface Water Design Manual M&O maintenance and operations NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service Renton Addendum City of Renton 2010 Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Segment A Lake to Sound Trail Segment A TIR technical information report TDA threshold discharge area Tukwila Addendum City of Tukwila Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Proposed Project King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile-long trail segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile-long Lake to Sound Trail. This trail, known as the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A (Segment A) or the Two Rivers Trail, will provide non - motorized access to recreation and employment centers for a variety of users such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. This technical information report (TIR) provides stormwater management documentation for Segment A and has been prepared in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM, King County 2009a). The TIR Worksheet (Figure 1-1) provides a general overview of the components of this report. A site location map is presented in Figure 1-2. Design drawings for the proposed project are provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Existing Site Conditions The Segment A project corridor lies within the Black River drainage basin, as shown on Figure 1-2. The corridor extends from the Green River Trail along an informal dirt footpath south of the Black River, crosses beneath the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific railroad trestles, crosses Monster Road southeast of the Monster Road bridge, crosses over the Black River east of the Monster Road bridge, and follows an existing gravel maintenance road along the north bank of the Black River and the Black River Riparian Forest until reaching Naches Avenue SW. Five thresholld discharge areas (TDAs) have been identified for the site, as shown on Figure 1-3. Topography in the site area is relatively flat; therefore, portions of the proposed trail in TDA 1 pass through the Black River floodplain. Surface runoff from most of the site travels as sheet flow discharging directly to the Black River (TDAs 1 and 3) or to wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest (TDAs 4 and 5). Runoff from the portion of the proposed trail that approaches and crosses the existing Monster Road (TDA 2) is collected into the storm drain systems on the north and south sides of the roadway. The north Monster Road storm drain system drains to an existing ditch that discharges to the Black River on the southeast side of the bridge. The south Monster Road storm drain system is conveyed southwest of Monster Road and continues onto private property adjacent the Black River. Northeast of the project area near the Black River Riparian Forest, a steep hillside drains towards the proposed site. There are four existing culverts in this area (TDAs 3, 4, and 5) that convey surface water flows beneath the existing gravel maintenance road. Soils in the project area (Figure 1-4) were classified west (TDAs 1, 2, and 3) and east (TDAs 4 and 5) of Monster Road. The west area, including Monster Road, is identified as Newberg silt loam —hydrologic soil group A/B--while the east area is Woodinville silt loam —hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Phone 206.263.7314 Address 201 So. Jackson St., Rm 700 Seattle, WA 98104 King County Facilities Management Division (Jason Rich) Project Engineer Company Phone Craig Buitrago Parametrix 206.394.3639 PART 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION • Landuse Services Subdivision/Short Subd. / UPD ❑ Building Services M/F / Commercial / SFR • Clearing and Grading ❑ Right -of -Way Use ❑ Other PART 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Ave SW DDES Permit # N/A Location Township 23 N Range 04 E Section SE 14, S 13, and NE 23 Site Address PART 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ® Shoreline Mgmt ❑ COE 404 ❑ Structural ❑ DOE Dam Safety Rockery/Vault/ • FEMA Floodplain ❑ ESA Section 7 ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Other PART 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report " Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage II Full/ ❑ Targeted I1 Full/ ❑ Targeted Review: ❑ Large Site Date (include revision dates): July 2013 Type ❑ Large Site Date (include revision dates): April 2013 Date of Final April 2015 Date of Final April 2015 PART 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type: ❑ Standard ❑ Complex D Preapplication ❑ Experimental ❑ Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required Start Date: Completion Date: ❑ Yes I No Describe PART 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: Green River Valley Special District Overlays: None Drainage Basin: Black River, WRIA 9 Tukwila: Conservation/Duration Control, Existing Conditions Target Stormwater Requirements: Renton: Peak Rate Flow Control Standard, Existing Conditions Target PART 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS River/Strea m Lake Wetlands Closed Depression Floodplain Other Green & Black Rivers ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Steep Slope Erosion Hazard Landslide Hazard Coal Mine Hazard Seismic Hazard Habitat Protection /1 ❑ Black River Riparian Forest -Wetlands 1-6 /1 ❑ A ❑ Green & Black Rivers PART 10 SOILS Soil Type Ng Wo Slopes O-4% 0-2% ❑ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Erosion Potential slight slight ❑ Sole Source Aquifer Seeps/Springs KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE ❑ Core 2 — Offsite Analysis Sensitive/ Critical Areas ❑ SEPA ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT Maintain wetland hydrology; no net fill in floodplains PART 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (PROVIDE ONE TIR SUMMARY SHEET PER THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA) Threshold Discharge Area TDA 1 - A -Line Stations 1+00 to 14+20 (name or description): Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1- continuous sheet flow to Blk River Offsite Analysis: Level: // 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: ❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 or Exemption Number Qum increase = 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance Responsibility: ❑ Private @ Public and Operation If Private, Maintenance Log Required: ❑ Yes ❑ No Financial Liability Guarantees and Provided: ❑ Yes ►Z/ No Water Quality (include facility Type: ❑ Basic ❑ Sens. Lake ❑ Enhanced Basic ❑ Bog Or Exemption No. N/A - no pollution -generating surfaces summary sheet) Landscape Management Plan: ❑ Yes 0 No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Requirements Drainage Type: ❑ CDA ❑ SDO ❑ MDP ❑ BP ❑ Shared Fac. 11 None Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: ❑ Major I1 Minor ❑ Exemption ❑ None 100- year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 22.58 feet Datum: NAVD 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High -use Site: ❑ Yes /1 No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: ■' Yes A No With whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (PROVIDE ONE TIR SUMMARY SHEET PER THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA) Threshold Discharge Area TDA 2 - C-Line Stations 201+11 to 206+50 (name or description): Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1- Ditch outfall to Black River Offsite Analysis: Level: 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: ❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 or Exemption Number Q1oo increase < 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Responsibility: ❑ Private CI Public Maintenance and Operation If Private, Maintenance Log Required: ❑ Yes ❑ No Financial Guarantees and Provided: ❑ Yes /1 No Liability Water Quality Type: ❑ Basic ❑ Sens. Lake ❑ Enhanced Basic ❑ Bog Or Exemption No. N/A - no pollution -generating surfaces added facility (include summary sheet) Landscape Management Plan: ❑ Yes No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: • CDA ❑ SDO ❑ MDP ❑ BP ❑ Shared Fac. ►ZI None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Type: ❑ Major Z Minor ❑ Exemption ❑ None Delineation 100- year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 22.58 feet Datum: NAVD 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: High -use Site: ❑ Yes ►ZI No Oil Control Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: ❑ Yes /1 No With whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Four catch basins and 12-inch conveyance pipe installed to maintain Monster Road runoff collection in existing roadway conveyance system. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (PROVIDE ONE TIR SUMMARY SHEET PER THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA) Threshold Discharge Area (name or description): TDA 3 - B-Line Stations 100+00 to 110+00 Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1- continuous sheet flow to Bik River Offsite Analysis: Level: /1 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: ❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 or Exemption Number Q1oo increase < 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Responsibility: ❑ Private ►/ Public Maintenance and Operation If Private, Maintenance Log Required: ❑ Yes ❑ No Financial Guarantees and Provided: ❑Yes // No Liability Water Quality Type: ❑ Basic ❑ Sens. Lake ❑ Enhanced Basic ❑ Bog (include facility summary sheet) Or Exemption No. N/A - no pollution -generating surfaces Landscape Management Plan: ❑ Yes ❑ No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: ❑ CDA ❑ SDO ❑ MDP ❑ BP ❑ Shared Fac. ►1 None Requirements Name: Type: ❑ Major 1:/ Minor ❑ Exemption ❑ None Floodplain/Floodway Delineation 100- year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 22.58 feet Datum: NAVD 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: High -use Site: ❑ Yes L No Oil Control Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: ❑ Yes /1 No With whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Catch Basin Type 2 and 12-inch conveyance pipe (connect to existing CB) near B-Line Sta. 105+05. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (PROVIDE ONE TIR SUMMARY SHEET PER THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA) Threshold Discharge Area TDA 4 B-Line Stations 110+00 to 132+00 (name or description): Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1- continuous sheet flow to wetlands Offsite Analysis: Level: ►/ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: ❑ 1 M ❑ 3 or Exemption Number Q1oo increase < 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Erosion and Sediment Control Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: ❑ Private /1 Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: ❑ Yes ❑ No Financial Guarantees and Provided: ❑ Yes ED No Liability Water Quality Type: ❑ Basic ❑ Sens. Lake ❑ Enhanced Basic ❑ Bog (include facility summary sheet) Or Exemption No. N/A - no pollution -generating surfaces Landscape Managernent Plan: ❑ Yes ❑ No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Requirements Drainage Type: ❑ CDA ❑ SDO ❑ MDP ❑ BP ❑ Shared Fac. I None Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: ❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Exemption 11 None 100- year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 18.58 feet Datum: NAVD 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High -use Site: ❑ Yes i1 No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: ❑ Yes ►1 No With whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe. I Box culvert to be installed at Station 125+95. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (PROVIDE ONE TIR SUMMARY SHEET PER THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA) Threshold Discharge Area (name or description): TDA 5 B-line Stations 132+50 to 142+50 Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1- continuous sheet flow to wetlands Offsite Analysis: Level: /1 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 Dated: February 21, 2013 Flow Control Level: ❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 or Exemption Number Q1oo increase < 0.1cfs (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs with basic & full dispersion Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: To be identified in construction SWPPP Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: ❑ Private /1 Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: ❑ Yes ❑ No Financial Liability Guarantees and Provided: ❑ Yes /1 No Water Quality Type: ❑ Basic ❑ Sens. Lake ❑ Enhanced Basic ❑ Bog (include facility summary sheet) Or Exemption No. N/A - no pollution -generating surfaces Landscape Management Plan: ❑ Yes ❑ No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Requirements Drainage Type: ❑ CDA ❑ SDO ❑ MDP ❑ BP ❑ Shared Fac. 11 None Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: ❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Exemption /1 None 100- year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 18.58 feet Datum: NAVD 88 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe: N/A (comm./ industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High -use Site: ❑ Yes I No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: ❑ Yes /1 No With whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION /4 Clearing Limits I'1 Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ® Cover Measures i4 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Perimeter Protection Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure 0 Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Traffic Area Stabilization ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas I Sediment Retention il Other ❑ Surface Water Collection ❑ Dewatering Control i4 Dust Control ❑ Flow Control PART 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (NOTE: INCLUDE FACILITY SUMMARY AND SKETCH) Flow Control Type/Description -❑ Water Quality Type/Description Detention ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Infiltration 0 Wetpool ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Oil Control 0 Flow Control BMPs basic and full dispersion ❑ Spill Control ❑ Other 1 Flow Control BMPs WQ not applicable, no ii Other pollution -generating surfaces PART 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS PART 16'STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Covenant ►4 Retaining Wall ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other ❑ Other PART 17 EASEMENTSITRACTS I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. „ Y- 7 -20 ts- Signed/Date \ro V\rIUICUIb K'IItl11 lb\ I OG I -MI I I 2 a juaua6as — punos o) 84e1 Ile�l pesodoid tiepunog' !O 180J0d ueued!J JeA! i loelg ✓ fD CD ryp• �. C r' o o -• N o' z 3 fD k 10 0 n 0 N co 0 0 end S and --I C) C.71 go 0011 1 2.2 co l,.V\VV4-1 OL I-UOY LLO 1 \Y vOVUb\VIJ\IVIdpUVCb\rl 1-L 1IR-VIU-O.[ 1 IM{JILV IU.IIUIU °W.S co 1 CO co 0) w co P CD c 03 0 ET 0 0 o 0)xi CO C• C. co e0 4".,5 J/owg6u\0S Naches Ave SW co v, • N 0 co 1 O Z 1- m 73 c) CD 0 0 5. n CD CO N V eoiy;sab pasodoJd panInO pesodoid N I I 0 D N uo;uab-q L Val elimrl-e I. vat 0 0 0 > > > 01 A W tiepunoe'(;ia c C FIT CD ▪ CI 27 I) 4U .77 O. N t/1 7 0 47 O • T T N (Jean(-ppl) suiejd luew6as — punos of a)je� Naches Ave SW Path: U:\PSU\Pfolects\UIlents\1 b21-1CI11gUO\bb4-1 b21-US4 L2 I\VV VCS\GIS\Mapuocs\rig'-4I IK-Solis-bxl luunezul 3.mxa 0 g0 I I -1 0 N uo;uaa-q 1. `dal el!MNnl-e l Val 0 0 0 D D D (T 4> w N m a ca a juaw5es — IleJi punos of tiepunog Apo w m x 5 v dnoiO I!og 3!60I0JpAH 0 0 r G. 01 0 ti 0 0 aaa Co 0) w a v, 'YO0jg5UUdS Co w a co 7• Naches Ave SW .7 rD ib Isom pasodoJd \\ w Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 1.3 Developed Site Conditions The proposed Segment A trail is designed to integrate into the existing landscape with as little alteration as possible. As previously stated, the paved trail will follow an existing dirt path and maintenance road. The trail will generally follow existing contours and maintain the current surface water flow patterns and discharge locations. Specific elements that will be included in the Segment A project are: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones from the edge of the pavement (approximately 2.9 acres of impervious surface) • Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.72 acres outside the proposed trail footprint). • Performing ground improvements, which will disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acres, to mechanically improve the physical properties of weak soils in the vicinity of the proposed trail bridge footings. • Constructing an undercrossing feature (a fenced canopy supported by posts) beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Installing a new trail bridge over the Black River to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use • Installing a pedestrian -actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge • Installing approximately 250 feet of sidewalk improvements at the southwest approach to Monster Road • Building a retaining wall near the south approach to Monster Road • Building three retaining walls north of the proposed trail bridge over the Black River to minimize fill impacts to adjacent areas • Constructing up to two 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one just west of the Black River Pump Station) • Installing one box culvert and five new catch basins • Building two retaining walls, one on each side of the box culvert to avoid impacts to adjacent wetlands • Installing split -rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife • Restoring the remaining disturbed areas with native plantings and soil amendments The Segment A alignment and profile will be adjusted and walls may be designed to minimize cut and fill impacts. Table 1-1 provides a comparison of the existing and proposed effective impervious area (EIA) for each TDA within the project site. Dispersion best management practices (BMPs) will be used along the trail to maintain the existing sheet flow stormwater patterns wherever possible. The effective impervious fractions applied to the actual total impervious areas within each TDA are 0 percent of total impervious for portions where full dispersion is applicable, 50 percent of total impervious where basic Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County dispersion will be used, and 100 percent of total impervious where no dispersion is feasible. A detailed summary of impervious area calculations for each TDA is provided in Appendix B. Table 1-1. Effective Impervious Area Comparison Station Length Total Area TDA' Start End (mile) (acre) Existing Proposed Discharge Location Tukwila Green River Trail to Monster Road (A -Line Segment) la 1+00 7+65 0.13 0.36 0.01 0.13 Sheet flow to Black River EIA2 (acre) Renton Green River Trail to Monster Road (A -Line Segment) - continued lb 7+65 14+20 0.12 0.42 0.03 0.18 Sheet flow to Black River Monster Road Bridge (C-Line Segment) 2 201+11 206+50 0.10 1.05 0.85 0.87 Ditch outfall to Black River Monster Road to Naches Avenue (B-Line Segment) 3 101+77 110+00 0.16 0.52 0.12 0.07 Sheet flow to Black River 4 110+00 132+50 0.43 1.36 0.14 0.07 Sheet flow to wetlands 5 132+50 143+17 0.20 0.64 0.05 0.15 Sheet flow to wetlands Total Project 1.20 1.47 1 TDA = Threshold Discharge Area 2 EIA = effective impervious area Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 2. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Both the City of Tukwila and the City of Renton have adopted the KCSWDM with jurisdictional addenda. Therefore, the Segment A trail stormwater design follows the guidelines provided in the KCSWDM, the City of Renton 2010 Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Renton Addendum, Renton 2010), and the City of Tukwila Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Addendum, Tukwila 2010). All three manuals identified above apply requirements based on the size of a project. The Segment A project will result in greater than 2,000 square feet (approximately 0.05 acre) of new and replaced impervious surface (Table 1-1); therefore, the project requires a full drainage review. According to Table 1.1.2.A in the KCSWDM, projects subject to a full drainage review must meet eight core requirements and five special requirements. In addition, the 2010 Renton Addendum lists a sixth special requirement that must be reviewed. The core and special requirements were evaluated for each TDA and summarized in Table 2-1. The details of the analysis, including the basis of hydrologic and hydraulic design, are discussed in subsequent sections of this TIR. Table 2-1. Summary of Core and Special Requirements Core and Special Requirements Proposed Stormwater Management Approach TIR Section CR1: Discharge Location CR2: Offsite Analysis CR3: Flow Control CR4: Conveyance System Preserve existing discharge locations to Black River and riparian wetlands. 4 Offsite analysis complete. 3 TDA la is subject to Tukwila Level 2 Conservation Flow Control Standard (match flow durations from one-half of 2-year through 50-year frequencies). TDAs lb to 5 are subject to the Renton Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Level 1/Basic Flow Control) matching existing conditions, (match the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak rate flows). The Segment A project is subject to a flow control exemption because it will result in no more than 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase in the 100-year peak flow rate in each TDA. Typically, runoff will sheet flow from the paved trail to the adjacent gravel shoulder and then to existing drainage pathways. At Monster Road, the project will install connections to the existing roadway conveyance systems to maintain existing drainage patterns. A new pedestrian bridge will be constructed to cross over the Black River east of the Monster Road Bridge. The bridge is designed to have 3 feet of freeboard from 100 year floodplain to bottom of superstructure elevation. A new box culvert at B-Line Station 126+00 will be designed to convey discharge from offsite areas at the 25-year peak flow with 6 inches of freeboard. Near B-Line 105+00, one new catch basin will be installed to extend an existing pipe. 4 5 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Table 2-1. Summary of Core and Special Requirements Core and Special Requirements Proposed Stormwater Management Approach TIR Section CR5: Erosion and Sediment Control CR6: Maintenance and Operations (M&O) CR7: Financial Guarantees and Liability CR8: Water Quality SR1: Other Adopted Requirements SR2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation SR3: Flood Protection Facilities SR4: Source Control SR5: Oil Control SR6: Aquifer Protection Areal The construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (CSWPPP) will be prepared and submitted to the Cities of Tukwila and Renton prior to construction as a separate document. King County will provide maintenance and operations for the trail. King County will provide financial information at the time of permit application. Non -motorized trails are considered non -pollution generating impervious surfaces and water quality treatment is not required. Therefore, a water quality analysis is not required for the Segment A trail. No area -specific requirements apply to this project. The trail is located within the 100-year floodplain in TDA 1. The trail design provides onsite compensatory storage for trail grading within the 100- year floodplain in TDA 1. This special requirement is not applicable to this project because it does not meet the commercial development permit threshold. This special requirement is not applicable to this project because the trail is not a pollution -generating surface and does not meet the high -use site threshold. This special requirement is not applicable to this project because the trail is not in an Aquifer Protection Area. 8 10 9 4 n/a2 6 6 n/a n/a n/a 1 Special Requirement 6 is specific to the 2010 Renton Addendum. 2 n/a = not applicable Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 3. OFFSITE ANALYSIS This section presents the Level 1 downstream analysis performed for the site in compliance with KCSWDM Core Requirement Number 2. The intent of the downstream analysis is to identify potential offsite flooding, erosion, water quality, and/or other hydrology -related issues that may be created or aggravated by the proposed project; evaluate issues identified; and take appropriate measures to prevent creating or aggravating potential problems. The elements of the downstream analysis are described in the sections below. 3.1 Study Area Definition and Maps The study area includes the proposed Segment A project site, Wetlands 1 through 5, and the overland flow path to the Black River. As shown on Figure 1-3, the study area lies within the Black River Basin in the Springbrook 17 and 18 Subbasins. The study area extends through the cities of Tukwila and Renton, within Section 13, Township 23N, Range 04E. 3.2 Resource Review The King County geographic information system (GIS) was accessed through the web -based iMAP tool (King County 2013) to identify past studies, known drainage problems, sensitive areas, wetlands, migrating river studies, King County -designated water quality problems, and floodplain/floodway studies within the study area. Map sets were reviewed for information on land use, zoning, surface water features, stormwater services, groundwater, critical areas, and shorelines (Appendix C). Based on the review of the King County GIS information, the following water resource -related elements exist within the study area: • Black River and Green River • Black River Riparian Forest • Floodway and 100-year floodplain • High susceptibility to groundwater contamination within TDA 1 • Shoreline designation along the Green River in TDA 1 • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge point in TDA 1 In addition, the Green River is classified as having a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, and the Black River and Springbrook Creek are city -designated Shorelines [Renton Shoreline Master Program 4-3-090-B]. 3.3 Field Inspection Parametrix performed a Level 1 field inspection of the trail corridor on February 12, 2013. The weather was overcast and cool. The purpose of the field inspection was to identify any drainage or erosion problems downstream of the project corridor. The field inspection was also used to verify TDA boundaries and their connections 0.25 mile downstream of their trail discharge location. Photographs from the field inspection are provided in Appendix C. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 3.3.1 1 DA 1 (A -Line Stations 1+00 to 14+20) TDA 1 begins within the city of Tukwila from Station 1+00 to Station 7+65 between the Green River and the soccer fields at Fort Dent. Land cover consists of well -established grass and planted trees with an access road composed of a compacted tire track. Soils are classified as Newberg silt loam, hydrologic soil group A/B (NRCS 2013). The ground surface is relatively flat with small undulations. Runoff in this area infiltrates into the soil on the south side of the proposed trail. Any runoff on the north side of the proposed trail that does not infiltrate will flow into the Black River. Two railroad trestles and one overhead water line are located between Station 6+95 and Station 8+00. The trestles form a cover over this area and intercept the rainfall. The portion of TDA 1 from Station 7+65 to Station 14+82 lies within the city of Renton. Land cover in this area is established grass, shrubs, and trees surrounding a compacted dirt path/access road. Runoff between Stations 7+65 and 10+50 tends to sheet flow to the north towards the Black River. From Stations 10+50 to 14+20, runoff sheet flows along the path/access road and then discharges at approximately Station 10+50 to the north and the Black River. 3.3.2 TDA 2 (C-Line Stations 201+11to206+50) TDA 2 is located along Monster Road and includes areas south and north of the road. The south approach consists of the KP Corporation driveway and roadway, sidewalk, and wide shoulder associated with Monster Road. The north approach consists of the vegetated area between Monster Road and the south embankment of the Black River, where the proposed pedestrian bridge approach and abutment will be installed and the pedestrian bridge will cross over the Black River. Monster Road consists of a 60-foot to 90 foot -wide paved area (roadway, sidewalk, and existing bridge) that will not change from the existing impervious land cover. Runoff from the portion of the proposed trail that approaches and crosses the existing Monster Road (TDA 2) is collected into the storm drain systems on the north and south sides of the roadway. The north Monster Road storm drain system drains to an existing ditch that discharges to the Black River on the southeast side of the bridge. The south Monster Road storm drain system is conveyed southwest of Monster Road and continues onto private property adjacent the Black River. Runoff from TDA 2 sheet flows southeast on top of the bridge and is collected in a piped conveyance system that discharges to a roadside ditch north of Monster Road, adjacent to C-Line Station 203+70. The ditch flows northwest adjacent to the bridge and discharges to the Black River. Land cover and related runoff quantities will not change for TDA 2; therefore, the piped conveyance system and roadside ditch are expected to have adequate capacity for the proposed project. 3.3.3 TDA 3 (B-Line Stations 101+77 to 110+00) TDA 3 follows along the existing gravel access roadway from Station 101+77 to Station 110+00. Soils in TDA 3 are classified as Woodinville silt loam, hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). Drainage along the roadway in TDA 3 tends to sheet flow to the southwest along the gravel road and then discharges to the south into the Black River. An ecology block barrier exists between the existing 12-foot-wide gravel road and the Black River to the south from Station 101+00 to the point at which the access road splits near Station 105+00. Beyond the split at Station 105+00, the proposed project follows the alignment to the north, where the existing access road narrows to approximately 10 feet. Wetland 5 is located on the northwest side of the gravel roadway between Stations 102+25 and 106+00. Drainage from this area enters a catch basin, is conveyed beneath the access road through a 12-inch culvert near Station Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 105+18, and discharges into the Black River. Wetland 6 is located on the southeast side of the trail between Stations 105+90 and 107+10. Drainage in this area sheet flows diagonally across the gravel roadway from the northwest to the southwest towards Wetland 6. A slight ridge exists at Station 110+00 where TDA 2 ends and TDA 3 begins. 3.3.4 TDA 4 (B-Line Stations 110+00 to 132+50) Topography in TDA 4 gently slopes from the northwest to the southeast and runoff sheet flows to nearby wetlands. Soils are classified as Woodinville silt loam, hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). Beginning at Station 110+00, the gravel roadway narrows to approximately 6 feet in width and then narrows to 4 feet around Station 124+00. A low point is located near Station 126+00 where a small drainage ditch (approximately 12 inches wide) crosses from the north to the south and discharges into Wetlands 3 and 4. The main contribution of flow in this ditch is from a 12-inch culvert located on the north side of the road that directs drainage under the railway. The gravel road gently slopes uphill towards Station 132+50 where there is a slight high point. Water from the nearby wetlands slowly flows through the Black River Riparian Forest to the Black River, which is approximately 300 to 1,000 feet south of the gravel roadway. The water then flows towards the Black River Pump Station dam to the west, then to the convergence point with the Green River. 3.3.5 TDA 5 (B-Line Stations 132+50 to 143+17) The ground surface in TDA 5 is relatively flat, with a slight downward slope to the south towards the Black River. Soils are classified as Woodinville silt loam, hydrologic soil group D (NRCS 2013). Runoff from the existing access road/path discharges to the west/southwest to the Wetland 1/2 Complex, which is a series of interconnected wetlands located on either side of the existing road. The width of the access road/path is approximately 4 feet wide throughout TDA 5. The elevation along the project alignment is very flat between Stations 132+50 and 138+00, holding at approximately 28 feet. Runoff in this area slowly sheet flows to the southwest. A catch basin with a solid lid is located near Station 133+00 on the north side of the gravel road. This catch basin is connected on the north to an 18-inch ADS (Advanced Drainage Systems high -density polyethylene) pipe and on the south to a 24-inch ADS pipe. This system appears to convey drainage from the north side of the railway to the Wetland 1/2 Complex located approximately 90 feet to the south of the gravel road. Near Station 139+50, a 12-inch culvert connects the Wetland 1/2 Complex across the access road. Drainage from the wetlands reaches the Black River approximately 600 feet to the southwest. Water flows to the west in the Black River where it joins with drainage from TDAs 2 and 3 more than 0.25 mile downstream. 3.4 Drainage System and Problem Descriptions The existing drainage systems consists of the cross culverts, and Monster Road conveyance systems described in Section 3.3. There appears to be adequate capacity and no apparent drainage problems. 3.5 Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems No existing problems were identified and no potential problems are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 4. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The flow control analysis and water quality evaluation for the project is presented in the following sections. 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) Existing soil types, land cover, and runoff patterns are described for each TDA in Section 3.2. This section describes runoff modeling assumptions and site parameters used in analyzing the existing site hydrology. Drainage Area Delineations TDA boundaries for the project vicinity were delineated based on existing site topography. Within each identified TDA, the site boundaries were delineated based on the proposed cut -and -fill line. Some clearing may take place beyond the cut -and -fill line; however, these areas will be restored to vegetated cover. The vegetated areas beyond the cut -and -fill line were not included in the runoff modeling analysis. Land Cover Existing land cover within the site boundary for each TDA was identified based on field investigation and review of aerial photography. The existing cover in TDA 1 was generally modeled as forest, with the exception of the existing railroad crossings, which were modeled as impervious surface. The existing compacted dirt path/road in TDA 1 was not differentiated from the forested area in the model. TDA 2 consists of the impervious surface of Monster Road and the vegetated Black River embankment where the bridge approach and abutment will be installed. The existing land cover was modeled as impervious surface area and till forest. In TDAs 3, 4, and 5, the existing gravel maintenance road was considered impervious surface with an effective impervious fraction of 0.50 based on Table 3.2.2.E of the KCSWDM. The ineffective impervious portion of the maintenance road was modeled as grass and the remaining area in TDAs 3, 4, and 5 was modeled as forest. Soils Soil types were sorted into hydrologic soil groups based on Natural Resources Conservation Service classifications (NRCS 2013) and model soil types based on Table 3.2.2.B of the KCSWDM. Newberg silt loam (TDAs 1, 2, and 3) is considered hydrologic soil group A/B and was modeled as till. Woodinville silt loam (TDAs 4 and 5) is considered hydrologic soil group D and was modeled as till. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) The proposed condition is shown on the design drawings provided in Appendix A. Modeling assumptions and site parameters used in analyzing the proposed site hydrology are discussed in this section. Drainage Area Delineations The proposed trail will maintain the existing drainage patterns along the trail corridor. Therefore, proposed drainage areas will match existing drainage areas. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Land Cover Within each TDA, proposed land cover was determined by separating the total site area into (1) the portion that will be the proposed trail, and (2) everything else, which will be shrub/forest. The area of the proposed trail was calculated as 16-foot width (the 12-foot-wide paved trail and two 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders) multiplied by the length of the TDA segment. The trail and gravel shoulders are considered new impervious area based on the KCSWDM definition. The total impervious area proposed for each TDA was assigned an effective impervious percentage based on the flow dispersion BMP planned for that portion of the trail. In TDA 2, remaining areas outside of the proposed trail and the impervious surface of Monster Road were modeled as grass. For all other TDAs, remaining areas within the proposed site boundary will be shrub/forest and were modeled as forest. BMP Adjustments Following the guidelines in Table 1.2.3.0 of the KCSWDM, impervious portions of the trail that will be fully dispersed were modeled as forest, while portions of the trail that will receive basic dispersion were modeled as 50 percent impervious and 50 percent grass. 4.3 Performance Standards (Part C) This section discusses applicable design standards from the KCSWDM and the Renton and Tukwila Addenda. 4.3.1 Flow Control Standards The Cities of Renton and Tukwila have designated area -specific flow control standards for each of their jurisdictions. The portion of the project within the city of Tukwila (TDA la) is subject to a Level 2 Conservation Flow Control Standard matching existing conditions, which requires proposed target surfaces to match existing runoff flow durations for one-half of the 2-year frequency through the 50- year frequency (Tukwila 2010). The remainder of the project area is located within the City of Renton and is subject to a Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Level 1/Basic Flow Control) matching existing conditions, which requires runoff from proposed target surfaces to match the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak rate runoff flows for existing conditions (Renton 2010). Target Surfaces How control requirements apply to areas identified as target surfaces. Target surfaces for Basic (Peak) Flow Control Areas include new impervious and new pervious surfaces that are not fully dispersed. Target surfaces for Conservation Flow Control Areas include areas not fully dispersed that are new impervious surface; new pervious surface; existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001; and certain types of replaced impervious surface. Flow Control Exemption In both jurisdictions, projects are exempt from constructing flow control facilities for a given TDA if the 100-year peak runoff flow from the proposed target surfaces will be within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100- year peak runoff flow. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 4.3.2 Conveyance System The Segment A project will maintain the existing drainage patterns of dispersed sheet flows from the trail surface within TDAs 1, 3, 4, and 5. For off -site runoff that passes through the project site, existing culverts and storm pipes will either remain undisturbed or be extended to account for the trail alignment and width. TDA 2 is located on Monster Road, and the proposed trail and sidewalk improvements will require additions to the existing conveyance systems to maintain existing drainage patterns. Also, one new box culvert will be constructed in TDA 4 in Renton at the existing ditch location near B-Line Station 126+00 to convey the off -site drainage to the opposite side of the trail and discharge in the same location as the existing ditch. The proposed pedestrian bridge and abutments are designed to be above the 100-year floodplain elevation. Construction activities will occur outside of the Black River ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and project improvements will not change the shape of the Black River channel. Therefore, no conveyance or hydraulic analyses were performed for the pedestrian bridge crossing over the Black River. Further discussion of the pedestrian bridge is provided in Section 5.2. The existing onsite conveyance systems will not experience a change in contributing flow characteristics as a result of the proposed project, therefore, the proposed modifications to the Monster Road conveyance systems and trail culverts do not require conveyance capacity analysis. Similarly, the proposed box culvert will replace an existing ditch that flows across the current access road near station. The contributing runoff will not change as a result of the trail project, therefore, culvert will be sized to convey at least as much capacity as the existing ditch. 4.3.3 Water Quality Treatment Water quality treatment is required by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila for runoff from pollution - generating surfaces. The Segment A project will not include any pollution -generating surfaces; therefore, no water quality treatment is proposed. 4.4 Flow Control System (Part D) How Control Facility Exemption The proposed Segment A project will maintain 100-year peak flows for each TDA within the 0.1 cfs threshold and will therefore be exempt from requirements to construct flow control facilities. The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS, King County 2009b) software was used to simulate runoff flows from existing and proposed conditions (including dispersion BMPs) for the Segment A project. Table 4-1 summarizes the modeling results. Detailed results of flow modeling for each TDA are provided in Appendix D. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Table 4-1. Comparison of Peak Runoff Rates TDA Total Area (acre) Existing Cover (acre) Shrub/ EIA1 Grass Forest Proposed Cover (acre) Shrub/ EIA1 Grass Forest 100-Year Peak Runoff (cfs) Existing Proposed Change 1 0.78 0.04 - 0.73 0.31 0.18 0.29 0.1 0.2 0.1 2 1.05 0.85 - 0.21 0.87 0.18 - 0.4 0.4 0 3 0.52 0.12 - 0.40 0.14 0.07 0.31 0.1 0.1 0 4 1.36 0.14 - 1.22 0.07 0.02 1.27 0.1 0.1 0 5 0.64 0.05 - 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.37 0.1 0.1 0 1 EIA = effective impervious area Flow Dispersion BMPs The Segment A project will employ basic and full dispersion BMPs wherever possible. The following design requirements apply: Basic Dispersion: • The dispersion device is sheet flow provided by the 12-foot-wide paved trail and 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders. • A 10-foot-wide vegetated flow path is provided to meet the requirements of the sheet flow dispersion method. • The dispersion flow path is less than 15 percent in grade, covered in native vegetation, and located between the trail and the downstream drainage feature (wetlands and/or Black River). • There are no landslide hazard areas or septic systems downstream and the dispersion will not create flooding or erosion impacts downstream. Full Dispersion: • The dispersion device is sheet flow provided by the 12-foot-wide paved trail and 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders. • A 100-foot-wide vegetated flow path is provided to meet the requirements of the sheet flow dispersion method. • The dispersion flow path is less than 15 percent in grade, covered in native vegetation, and located between the trail and a downstream drainage feature (wetlands and/or Black River). • There are no landslide hazard areas or septic systems downstream and the dispersion will not create flooding or erosion impacts downstream. The locations of dispersion techniques within each TDA are listed in Appendix B. The Segment A trail, along with the proposed sheet flow dispersion components, will be located within wetland buffers in TDAs 3, 4, and 5. As discussed in the critical area report (Parametrix 2015b), the proposed trail alignment will result in some impacts to adjacent wetland buffers; therefore, a wetland mitigation site will be developed. The critical area report details the impacts study, the selection of the mitigation site, and the size of the mitigation site. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 4.5 Water Quality (Part E) The Segment A project will not include any pollution -generating surfaces; therefore, no water quality treatment is proposed. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 5. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The Segment A project will maintain the existing dispersed sheet flow drainage patterns within each TDA and leave all existing cross -culverts in place. The project will include the new conveyance system components discussed below. 5.1 Monster Road Storm Drain Systems Two existing conveyance systems are located on Monster Road: one on the north side of the road, and another along the gutter line of the south sidewalk, in front of the KP Corporation property (TDA 2). As shown on the design drawings presented in Appendix A, the project will install a new ramp and pedestrian -actuated signal crossing at the southeast end of the Monster Road bridge (C-Line Station 202+50). To accommodate the new flow line that will be created by the pedestrian safety improvements, a lateral connection with the 12-inch storm drain pipe will be established by installing one new catch basin in the gutter and a second catch basin in the existing conveyance system on the north side of Monster Road. The south trail approach to Monster Road will follow the existing Monster Road sidewalk and a new sidewalk will be installed further north. The new sidewalk will create a new gutter flow line and a depressed area southwest of the trail ramp. To accommodate for the modified runoff patterns, one new catch basin will be installed in the depression between the sidewalk and the trail southwest of the trail ramp (C-Line Station 202+37), and a second catch basin will be installed in the gutter near the driveway entrance to the KP Corporation property (C-Line Station 203+34). Collected runoff will be conveyed via 12-inch storm drain pipe from the catch basin near the trail ramp (C-Line Station 202+37) to the catch basin in the new gutterline (C-Line Station 203+34), and re -connect to the existing storm conveyance system in the existing catch basin located south side of the trail near C-Line Station 203+33. Drainage problems have not been documented in this area and the contributing area will be less than or equal to the existing area; therefore, 12-inch storm drain pipes similar to the existing pipe systems will have adequate capacity to convey runoff. As a result, no calculations were performed. 5.2 Pedestrian Bridge As previously discussed, the proposed pedestrian bridge and abutments will be constructed above the Black River 100-year floodplain elevation. The Black River 100-year floodplain elevation at the proposed pedestrian bridge is calculated at 22.57 feet (NAVD 88) using the 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The trail surface across the bridge is 6- feet above the floodplain elevation, which allows up to 3-feet in bridge depth from top of trail to the bottom of any bridge element, plus 3-feet of clearance from the bottom of any bridge element to the 100-year floodplain elevation. Additionally, the north and south pedestrian bridge abutments will be installed outside of the 100 year floodplain elevation. The 3- foot clearance to base of bridge meets the bridge clearance design requirements for rivers where the 100-year peak flow exceeds 100 cfs (Section 6.03.F of the King County Road Standards, Section 6.02.F). The project does not propose changes to the Black River channel and all work will be done outside of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). As a result, the project does not anticipate the trail bridge improvements to have conveyance impacts to the Black River, and no calculations were performed. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County Floodplain elevations are further discussed in Section 6.1, and the bridge design drawings are found in Appendix A. 5.3 TDA 3 Catch Basin The project will install a new catch basin in TDA 3 near B-Line Station 105+05 with a 12-inch storm drain pipe to tie into the existing catch basin. The existing catch basin collects offsite runoff and overflow from Wetland 5. The proposed trail cannot avoid covering this catch basin; therefore, it will be raised to grade and a solid locking lid will be installed. To maintain existing flow patterns, the new catch basin will be installed west of the trail perpendicular to the existing catch basin. This area does not have documentation of drainage problems and the contributing area will be Tess than or equal to the existing area. Therefore, a 12-inch storm drain pipe extending the existing pipe will have adequate capacity to convey runoff. As a result, no calculations were performed. 5.4 TDA 4 Box Culvert The project will construct one new box culvert in Renton at the existing ditch location near B-Line Station 126+00 to convey the upstream drainage to the opposite side of the trail and discharge in the same location as the existing ditch. The existing ditch is 1 foot wide and 1 foot deep with 2:1 side slopes and a longitudinal slope of 5.26 percent. The maximum capacity of this ditch is 13.29 cfs. No signs of erosion or drainage problems were evident during the downstream analysis. Because there will be no change in the area contributing runoff to the culvert, the project did not perform a separate drainage basin analysis for contributing flow, and will instead design a culvert that will convey at least 13.29 cfs when half full. Based on stakeholder negotiations, a concrete box culvert with a 48-inch rise and 40-inch width will be installed. The culvert will be set flat and countersunk with streambed gravel with a depth of approximately 2 feet at the upstream end and approximately 1 foot at the outfall. The culvert will convey 29.6 cfs at 1 foot deep (1 foot of freeboard) and 59.2 cfs at full flow capacity. Culvert analysis and design documentation is provided in Appendix E. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6.1 Floodplain Analysis Floodplain impacts include any site activity that will place material at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation within a floodplain boundary. The Green and Black River floodplain boundaries and elevations within the vicinity of the Segment A project were identified based on 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map 53033C, Panels 0975F and 0976F (FEMA 1995). The project team depicted the floodplain boundary in the design drawings and floodplain figures using City of Renton GIS Data (Renton 2015), which is a digital interpretation of the 1995 FEMA FIRM. The floodplain boundary is shown on Figure 1-3 and in detail in Appendix F. Approximately 1,050 feet of the Segment A trail alignment is located within the Green River and Black River floodplains in TDA 1, from the connection to the Green River Trail at A -Line Station 1+00 to Station 11+50. In TDA 3, approximately 350 feet of the proposed trail alignment is located in the Black River floodplain from B-Line Station 101+77 to approximately Station 105+50. The remainder of the trail in TDA 3 and the entire length in TDA 4 is located adjacent to the floodplain. The trail in TDA 5 is located in the floodplain from B-Line Station 132+50 to the end of the project at Naches Avenue (B-Line Station 143+17). The FEMA floodplain elevation west of the Black River Pump Station (A -Line Station 1+00 through 17+76, and B-Line Station 101+78 through 105+50 is 19 feet NGVD 29, which translates to 22.57 feet NAVD 88 in the project datum. East of the Black River Pump Station, the FEMA floodplain elevation is 15 feet NGVD 29, which translates to 18.57 feet NAVD 88. Based on floodplain elevations, the proposed trail is beneath the 100-year floodplain elevations in TDA 1 from A -Line Station 1+00 to Station 11+50. The remainder of the trail will be constructed above the floodplain elevations. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail will approximate existing grade as close as possible while providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. Between A - Line Stations 1+00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill will be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation will be conducted. The net result of the project will remove approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F. 6.2 Stream Discipline Report In support of the WSDOT Environmental Classification Summary form for the NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion process, this report describes streams and aquatic resources in the project vicinity, including two fish -bearing streams. This report also evaluates potential impacts to streams and stream buffers from the proposed project, presents avoidance and minimization measures included in the project design, and discusses conceptual mitigation for unavoidable impacts (Parametrix 2015a). 6.3 Critical Area Study A critical area report (Parametrix 2015) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed trail impacts to the wetlands and associated buffers along the trail corridor in Renton. Because of the amount of wetland buffer impacts created by the new trail alignment, there will be a wetland mitigation site. The critical area report details the impacts study, the selection of the mitigation site, and the size of the mitigation site. Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 6.4 Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report This report provides information in support of the WSDOT Environmental Classification Summary form for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documented Categorical Exclusion process by describing vegetation and wildlife resources in the project vicinity, evaluating potential impacts to critical areas from the proposed project, and presenting mitigation for potential impacts (Parametrix 2015c). Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 7. OTHER PERMITS Other permits required for this project include: • City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program • City of Renton Shoreline Conditional Use Permit • NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 8. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (CSWPPP) will be prepared and submitted to the Cities of Tukwila and Renton prior to construction as a separate document. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 9. BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The Segment A project is a public improvement project led by King County within the public county right-of-way. Quantities will be prepared for the work elements pertaining to the project, and an engineer's estimate will be provided to establish an opinion of cost for the project. However, bonding worksheets usually prepared for private developer projects have not been developed for this public county project. Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Operation and maintenance of the Segment A trail will be provided by King County staff after completion of the project. Applicable operation and maintenance guidelines from the KCSWDM are provided in Appendix G. Lake to Sound Trail - SegmentA Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain King County 11. REFERENCES FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas. Map 53033C, Panels 0957F and 0976F. Effective September 29, 1989; Revised May 16, 1995. King County. 2009a. King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. January 2009. King County. 2009b. King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) Hydrologic Simulation Model for Implementing the Runoff -Files Methodology, Version 6.0. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division. March 2009. King County. 2012. King County Geographic Information System Floodway and Floodplain data layers. Available at: http://www5.kingcounty.gov/gisdataportal/. Data generated 2012. King County. 2013. King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool. Accessed at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx. May 2013. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2013. Web Soil Survey Application. Accessed at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. April 2013. Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A: Stream Discipline Report. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A, Final Critical Area Study. Prepared for King County Parks Division. Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Parametrix. 2015c. Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A: Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. Prepared for King County, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Renton, City of. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. City of Renton Public Works Department, Surface Water Utility. February 2010. Renton, City of. 2015. GIS Data. FEMA Floodplain Boundary. http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=29887. Data Downloaded May 30, 2015. Tukwila, City of. 2010. Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards. City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Fourth Edition, revised April 2010. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2013. Web Soil Survey. Accessed at: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. April 2013. Appendix A Project Design Drawings Friday, April 03, 2015 1:50:02 PM Puget Sound Burien Seattle ,-1 Lake `1s. Washington � r Bellevue Project'_�� Site A. 1 r I ., ., - Tu.' la, ` r LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE sake to found Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX REVISIONS I DATE BY IDESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN AT L IF ONE NOT, SCALEINCHAFCCORDCAINGLE.Y • ✓ BEGIN PROJECT • 'f CITY OF TUKWILA stk N UNINCORPORATED II KING COUNTY LACK RN CITY OF RENTON -. - END PROJECT *" a .•y VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE II PROJECT NAME Sunset - _ SW 7TH ST tspv-1 (a 1-405 _ CAM 1Ask CR LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR AIM NG NO 1 OF 4r ABBREVIATIONS: ACP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PC POINT OF CURVE BOC BACK OF CURB PT POINT OF TANGENT BOW BACK OF SIDEWALK P/L PROPERTY UNE BP BEGIN PROFILE PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE BVCE BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATION PUD PUBUC UTILITY DISTRICT BVCS BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE STATION PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION CB CATCH BASIN R RADIUS C&G CURB AND GUTTER RT RIGHT C/L CENTERUNE ROW or R/W RIGHT—OF—WAY CONC CONCRETE SD STORM DRAIN CONST CONSTRUCTION SDMH STORMWATER MANHOLE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SS SANITARY SEWER COR CITY OF RENTON STA STATION CP CONCRETE PIPE TDA THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA CSTC CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TEL TELEPHONE DIA DIAMETER TESC TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DI, DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE TYP TYPICAL E EAST, EASTING VC VERTICAL CURVE EOA EDGE OF ASPHALT VERT VERTICAL EOG EDGE OF GRAVEL W WATER EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT WS WATER SERVICE EP END PROFILE WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE EVCE END VERTICAL CURB ELEVATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EVCS END VERTICAL CURB STATION EX, EXIST EXISTING FOC FACE OF CURB FL FLANGE, FLOWUNE G GAS GB GRADE BREAK HMA HOT MIX ASPHALT HORIZ HORIZONTAL ID INDENTIFICATION IE INVERT ELEVATION KC KING COUNTY LF UNEAR FEET LP LOW POINT LT LEFT ME MATCH EXISTING MIN MINIMUM MON MONUMENT N NORTH, NORTHING N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT NO. NUMBER NST NOT STEEPER THAN OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN i ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY INDEX TO DRAWINGS DWG NO. SHT NO. SHEET TITLE GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 COVER SHEET ABBREVIATIONS AND SHEET UST LEGEND SURVEY CONTROL PLAN SURVEY CONTROL PLAN A—UNE CONSTRUCTION BASEUNE CONTROL C—UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL B—UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL DEMOLITION 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7 DM8 DM9 DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN TYPICAL SECTIONS 18 CS1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS PLAN & PROFILE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE INTERSECTION PLAN PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE SIGN SCHEDULE AND GRADING DETAIL STORM DRAINAGE 34 SD1 CULVERT DETAILS WALL PROFILES 35 NOT INCLUDED WP1 WD1 GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PROFILES GRAVITY BLOCK WALL DETAILS (90% SUBMITTAL) DETAILS 36 37 38 D1 D2 D3 DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS SIGNALIZATION 39 40 41 42 43 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 SIGNAL PLAN SIGNAL WIRING DIAGRAM SIGNAL POLE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POST DETAILS SIGNAL DETAILS STRUCTURAL 44 NOT INCLUDED S1 S2 BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL PLANS (90X SUBMITTAL) M TIGATION 45 46 47 NOT INCLUDED MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS MITIGATION NOTES MITIGATION PLAN FOR GROUND IMPROVEMENTS (90% SUBMITTAL) I I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL I I 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A121212CVIATIMIC AK M DRANK NO. 2 OF 47 April 03. 2015 1: 50. U: \P50\Projects\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L25T\995vcs\CARD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ LEGEND ULSL:KIN I !UN ROW UNE RAILROAD C/L PROPERTY UNE EASEMENT UNE FOUND MONUMENTS REBAR & CAP HUB & TACK PK NAIL PROPERTY CORNER STREAM BUFFER STREAM EDGE OF WATER WETLAND FLAG ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION DITCH UNE STORM DRAIN LINE CULVERT QUARRY SPALL CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 2 INLET PROTECTION SANITARY SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER VAULT CLEANOUT I'KUI U LU ■ CONTOURS MAJOR 0 CONTOURS MINOR 2 FILTER FABRIC FENCE—O—O—O—O—O— HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE K( JI( F( CLEARING AND GRUBBING LIMITS—a—a—cc—w— CLEARING UNITS — FILL UNE -----F F F CUT UNE c c c c- SAWCUT UNE /// i i i i z i A i ASPHALT EDGE CONCRETE UNE CURB AND GUTTER UNE EDGE OF PATCH EDGE OF GRAVEL — — JURISDICTIONAL DITCH ROCKERY CONCRETE BARRIER EXIS IING R/W RAILROAD C/L P/L 0 • • OHWM REVISIONS I DATE IBY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN ONE CHCH AT CL IF NOT, INSCALE ACCORDINAGLE.Y LEGEND DESCRIPTION SPLIT RAIL FENCE UNE BARBWIRE FENCE UNE WOOD FENCE UNE CHAIN LINK FENCE UNE HOG WIRE FENCE UNE WOOD GUARDRAIL GUY ANCHOR POWER POLE WITH UGHT FLOOD UGHT UTILITY POLE PP W/ UG DROP PP W/ UG DROP & XMFR OVERHEAD POWER POWER POWER VAULT POWER TRANSFORMER POWER MANHOLE POWER HANDHOLE POWER CABINET POWER RISER POWER METER SOLID UD J-BOX LUMINAIRE TELEPHONE VAULT TELEPHONE RISER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE TV RISER TV GAS VALVE GAS WATER UNE FIRE HYDRANT WATER METER WATER VALVE WATER BLOW OFF VALVE WATER POST INDICATOR SPRINKLER HEAD ROT-90 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION // ii ii — 1i ii , TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE W/ LAMP x x TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE a D —u u- -u--- TRAFFIC CONTROL LOOP (SQ) TRAFFIC CONTROL CABINET 0 0 . o -o -0 0 o PEDESTRIAN POLE u u u u u u u u u u u u- u T r MONITORING WELL SURFACE POST SIGN •^ 0 ^'- SKIP LANE UNE SOUD LANE UNE FOG UNE LTO ARROW -... -- ------ STO ARROW r - RFO ARROW 1 ' 1 MAILBOX L7 1 II PROJECT NAME TREES WETLAND SYMBOL WETLAND BOUNDARY VEGETATION RETAINING WALL RIP RAP ROCKERY HANDICAPPED SYMBOL WHEELCHAIR RAMP BUILDING UNE CONCRETE STAIR UNE WOOD STAIRWAY ASPHALT PATH CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ENGINEERED SOIL MIX LANDSCAPE AREA RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING RESTORATION PLANTING AREA TEST PR OR BORE HOLE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL PROPOSED EXISTING 1 • TP-1 BH # 71, 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I i DRAWING NO 3 OF 47 day, April 03, 2015 L___ BEGIN PROJECT BpSTA1+00 BLACK RIVER t 1 OHWM_ PARCEL N0. 722 „360 O to WI N p—• i je.-- _ Ill ,—cc=z=co Z - a'� W I _ �r� =1=— w� - 4 STA 6 NPARCEL NO00360 C - KING LCOUNTY 37 RENTON SNO SNORELANDS STA 6+_52. 11.0'LT cm OF TUKWM T 36 RENTON SNORE A% " _ // —r /,',. GR�EN RIVER TRAIL 1'`� - Psi L. .1 KC PARCEL N0. 7229500350 SNSF s PARCEL 67SF N0. 232-3049005 - ---. �LYTY OVERHEAD N WATERLINE a_ 0) o FORT DENT PARK PLAN 0 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 Z U Q Sao 1 1 I 1 I I, I I I KC PARCEL N0. 7229500340 I 1 0.W. RR ANC NAV. CO. LESSEE - UPRR 1 I 1 _-1-F--1 i fi 77 p 1 \ 111 4. 7 boo i I I A -LINE I- -,ems-- _ e+oo 'p ` � cc—Ex—cK>^-a--oc—, -- - --_ _ __. . -, ----- -- .= : - :I - -- -: , cc cL=�- J��-�- '� �cc cc 0 EABEMENF #7203020421 - 150WID RAINAGE DITCH ��� '+11I-� G 4+00 KC PARCEL NO. 7229560320 AR14RC0 KC PARCEL N0. 7229503330 0.W. RR AND NAV. CO. LESSEE - UPRR BLACK RIVER OHWM KC PARCEL NO. 7229500360 K0S COLNEY TRACT 36 RENTON 1 /1 I /KC 'PARCEL NO. 7229500360 in Cm OF NKWI A +, _ p /'' TRACT 36 RENTON 9TORELANDS in O 'i pY p p' .;�aN : _ .':."."---..,,,, � 6 jl-. '�CO—OG=Do..—Z IV IQ 12 1 1 (TDA1}-- C PARCEL N0. 2323049001 LITT OF TUKWILA —�•�x�tc -{_ RT 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN�� (1995 FIRM) HELD CURRENT FIELD LOCATED CENTERLINE OF EASTERLY BNSF RAILS � � f --I-::- ,mo`� ---0--4,--- 5 o z I Ca _ I w x / I / I 1 EL NO. 23210903 I KC PARCRR AND NAV3 1 II 1 I /.�-- \ LESSEE -UPRR 1 `1 ,--(TDA1 )1'_ - 79 Q I REVISIONS DATE DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN ONE INCH ACALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 II PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 1 1 DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. ® REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 3 REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. OADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. ® REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. OINSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. ® REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. O12 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. RE R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPUANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: ®INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ® NOT USED. ®INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. @INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WFTH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. OINSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WFTH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18- BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS UMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: ///77 SAWCUT Orin DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. - — — - TDA BOUNDARY Ilk CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL x HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE —0-13— SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION nFMnI ITIAN akin DRAIWNG N0. 9 OF 47 Fridoy, April 03, 2015 1:53:41 PM KCRARCE uNO... 7229500320 BLACKIR RIVE --- OTT 1i\ o o Ott,\ 0` 6\ o!1_ _i COS Ik KC PARCEL NO. 1423049008 O.W. RR AND NAV. CO. LESSEE - UPRR • • KC. PARCEL NO. 7229500330 O.W.. RR AND NAV. CO. LESSEE- UPRR A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRA EC0� U9PPSiRW -504 \./ ` Qy V.0 P/'P' Di'RONica • • -3y' 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) _ 12+00-`� ECG ....cs-OG=rsz__�'G CG OR STA 12+93, '.3'LT AFyr_8 � ole-c • .... ___-� ..... PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY ALINE 10 STA 12+98, 19.7'RT I I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL I I DEMOLITION NOTES: OMAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1 VrN Aw LJJ 1Nf ORMAIIVI I. OREMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 3 REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. UADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OS REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALJ @INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 07 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. @ REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. @ REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 10 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 12 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 13 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 14 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 15 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET Q FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 16 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 17 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 18 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. O2 NOT USED. @INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. i--\ !NSTAI i HIGH VIS16!LT1Y SILT FENCE IN L% ACCORDANCE WRH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. 5 INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. 6 SANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHE GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS UM WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON TH, PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: —0-0— • SAWCUT DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL x- HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION nminni ITInkI Akin DRAWING NO. 10 OF 47 U: \P5O\Projects\Clien to\I 521—K ingCo\ GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. f ,: aC. `'A C100+00_ -17 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) 101+0 20/ \ yam- _-SEE GENERAL NOTE 4 •��/f�STA-201+64, 7.2'L PN�119 132304"2° J . /., ,KM - J— r »/ ��a-�-_ �---�=rL ti �/ �6 �-` 103+00 %`- -- � ,�1"� is - i Iiac' !�i cc _-w M/Ce /: r, --ice Ar 102+0�=� ' STA 102+02, 10.1'RT BEGIN - R/w STA 201+38.•51 i RT' BE�INn arc J Y' T3+96 22_5'+3T_ 56'RT� _ RjWc 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN - 7Q•Fw',.. If• 7' E. 1 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY 3719200119 OR • c 11' 1Y.K1.3Y'n TTFE 14 SE•2` SEE TS SHEETS FOR LUMINAIRE REMOVAL • LEGEND: 'I'I' SAWCUT DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA - — — - TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT —0-0— SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION -TPA LIMITS OF GROUND IMPROVEMENTS IPA i SEE DM9 7 A 411.6 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE' - — 5 r i LIMITS OF GROUND IMPROVEMENTS ..lSEE DM9 - 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN zip -i - $TA 202+79;_20,3'LT� _ MIJNSTER ROAD STA 202+51, 46.6'RT PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 6rfrimmta F,V=2F5'. _ 18• I 1-115'-- STA 203+58, 40.4'RT OEND r 9Bo _-STA-203+61, 40.3'RTJ I I PROJECT NAME TO SOU ,T LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL FENCE u DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS ID NO. FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. OREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. OADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. ® INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. ® REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. CI REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 7, EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. ©REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. ©REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. RE R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPUANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. ©PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ® NOT USED. ®INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. ®INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. OINSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. 7--•- ,1/ 205+00 E "lY'.,z:,ti kZE ,71+2661. TYPE E'w-19.65 rv,4 IC le D E- u.- ®STA 205+96, 7.9'RT AND LT IP• D w-Is ,�+ END 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION AND I I DRAPING NO. 11 OF 47 iday. April 03. 2015 1 5, • WETLAND 5 r 100—YEP.K FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) J i\ C PARCEL N0. 3779200 9 - - _CRY OF RENTON A REVISIONS DATE IBY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN ONE CHCH CL. IF NOT, INA SCALE ACCORDINAGLEY /.*'—WETLAND BUFFER -- / - �� ��' � 10i+00 - E =1� C `ce, - > „ PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 WETLAND 6 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 DISE 3 TOTAL 11- 10 00 61, 1 KC PARCEL N0. 3779200119 CITY OF RENTON WETLAND BUFFER 20' WIDE WING WALL EASEMENT NO. 6626569 I I PROJECT NAME SOUND - - LAKE T TO STRAIL I I DEMOLITION NOTES: Oi MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS I V13 AVI.LJJ II1r VI�MAIIQIV. ® REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 3 REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C—SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. ® REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALI ®INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. OREMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 0 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. O2 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED 1GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET Q FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 127 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP —RESISTANT, ADA—COMPLIANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 18 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ® NOT USED. ®INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. 4 INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. 5OINSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. 6 SANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1—C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISH( GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS UM WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY • CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON TH PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: 7 SAWCUT () DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL 7u . HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE —O—D— SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION 60°/a REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION nFMnI ITlnM AMn DRAWING NO. 12 OF 47 ‘tI GI WI WIN WI NI 31 -I1 - _ _ ___ 2,,--- -- ca-G9-�_ C0 `� mF— - _ -- -1 - - - • - 4 1- -= �� — —�Omoo ��0��� O—_• Z.); KC P/�9C3116�3779100119 :- --- . . . 1' CRY OF REN792 .. . C I / //�__.._._ 1 / ( t~ f••• ro Go N "c 11 +---109+00 — — — ----- I— — - 01► - �1 _ Q ---4C__ •' to WI J1._2•—_�- IC) 21 I A REWSCNS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVCRAK DRAM ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT I KC PARCEL NO. 1323019020 RAF �_o__�o__o----o o o o — o-- INGRESS, EGRESS PA o� - AND UTILffY EASEMENT 0- o� � oI Y7 1DA2) .1- , roA3 �y�'cc=ic=—��co3� �°—Co—co-co-cD _cc—�cc-Cs-co-Cc-a- x Q sC0-n- CO= � �., — \ ,12+00 �.-��713+00 CO --------111+00—BLINE— ' — - II- Q 1� I --I i � I Q +00 KC PPRC L N0. 3779203119 CRY OF RDRON PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049320 ENSF --a---"— �— rINGRESS, EGRESS AND UTLITY EASEMENT _ - 2- -- _ - ----- 45--�.�---� _co--co�Dc—cC=—_-9p`Cp-cG—bow-a—C9„�cc—.S&: _ 116+00— • PLAN -0 100—YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) o P/L . — CO II C iu. W I. _ i -i676'--- ---_-.-- CG G9 IS 09 Go GE oG , a cC ro m-= - _ - _ �` _ -�-x- y 117+00 -- —B4iNE — + — —R c� I\sue — — 118+00 , �i .ciiitte. - - -. - �--- po M = -Cam._. 1 OD gliriL CO WETLAND BUFFER �jv, COTTONWOODS, VERIFY � I W 1 AT TIME OF WORK Z 7,1 ® PLUM TREES, VERIFY IV AT TIME OF WORK r 100—YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) IF,• iX 3 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 KC PARCEL NO. 3779200� CRY OF REN101 t- II PROJECT NAME —24 DEMOLITION NOTES: OMAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. OREMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. OREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. ALL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. OADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C—SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. ® REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. \INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL 08 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. OREMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. CI RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 12OEXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. CI PROTECT EXISTING TREE. RE R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET OF ROOT BARRIER. 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP —RESISTANT, ADA—COMPLIANT COVER. C1ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: \INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ® NOT USED. \INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. ®INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. \INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1—C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18• BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS UNIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: SAWCUT MT) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY F ••• •I CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL 71 HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE —a—o— SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION FOR INSTALLATION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL n=Mf11 III( PJ AA1n DRAWING NO. 13 OF 47 rajen DATE: Friday, April 03, 2015 1 PATH: U: \P50\Projects\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L25T\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Tos TOTAL ----_--- --- -------- --- --- - n n i Z1= N 121+00 122+00 119+00 — - - ---1-- � __--- =1 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 0 SF = - INGRESS, EGRESS ""�--.,,,�, -_Q_ AND UTWTY EASEMENT '"'---- P/L _� ,_-- a o _ TDA3 5711-1 1 i �- C[ J «y \ CG _ \.----- 2 cc—a_�_� —�—�— cc—a—x—cG— cc—a—cc— c - 120+00 1 1 - 7 - — FL 4o c�-6 �_-W_— ��__��� _ —7 p -= ' -_ �l+n_ ,.. p—p—pro—00�-co DEMOLITION NOTES: 1 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OR ACCESS INFORMATION. PAL I O2 REMOVEPLASTICTRAFFIC' MARKER. REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. 0 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN of-----_------------------------------------------------------ _-(1995 FIRM) KC PARCEL NO. 3779200118 CRY OF RENTON INGRESS EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 7- _-- - 124+00 KC PARCEL N0. 3779203117 CRY Of RENTON i ) / r WETLAND BUFFER KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 RNSF A REVISIONS DATE �7GNK 1D . _CS _ 6 ( (f INGRESS, EGRESS --�---�----.�--��A1ND UTILITY EASEMENT KC PARCEL ND. 3779200117 CRY OF RENTON SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 12' 7, 126+00 00 DESIGNED J. DVORAK I ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. I DRAWN KC PARCEL N0. 3779200117 CRY OF RENTON - - i o- 1 O 1 � L.:/ ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. f 's --- SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWAL O6 INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING —�-- + COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF M THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. ; O REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. _I Fa- OS REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. ly W O REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 10 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. OEXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED 12 GRADE BY OTHERS. 13 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 14 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 15 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. RE R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET 0 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 16 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 17 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 18 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN P,� ---� 1 ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. O2 NOT USED. ID OINSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. �`�-'j IN$TAI I HIGH VICIRII fjV $II T FENCE IN �y 5 NSTALLATEMPORARY WBYPASS TO DIVERT WATERAROUND 00 - x--_,_�_ - _-- _ __ - _ r • , u.E _ ._- - - _- _ _ O WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION _� WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. a—�— -_ W O SANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING _128+00 y CULVERT WORK. (TDA3 ) � GENERAL NOTES: _p.---�_ + °fy`�= — ] it 1 I DD =�D_ _6 iCG—per pa p — O a O --o-1 — b {s= _ ----------- • 'y (199 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Z ti ."`• (1995 FIRM) INGRESS, EGRESS IJ AND UTILITY EASEMENT I= WETLAND 3 PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049012 CRY OF RENTON WETLAND BUFFER I I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL I I FPI I 1 I 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISI- GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIFE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON TF PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: " � 7 SAWCUT (T6) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. - — — - TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL x HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE —p—p— SILT FENCE • INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IIFMfl ITIfN AM) I I DRA'A1NG NO 14OF4i U. \PSO\Projects\Clients\1521—KngCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ 31 ,-`. 1 /- ,_` -4I r"_____---_ _ -1 7, - 11 , - Z - cn cn1 R 129+00 P/L — — — 130+00. �; —__— 131+00 132+00 cc p a o a � �•T—0=�10—, �]—`�= =L7—�° ❑ `-0—d—o--0—p-� p' ���0 �i , °C n cGa o Cry ` =a=o—a—o—o CA If1( 10 9-YEAR5FIRM) FLOODPLAIN - (199 1 © I ® ® j---------------------------- / --PLL - ----- O c 7 r- KC PARCEL N0. 3779200117 CRY OF RENTON -INGRESS, EGRESS IAND'UT1L1TY EASEMENT --3 - 32 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 col Im L— e1 7- KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 RNSF ? cc a cc ----- KC ----------------- PARCEL NO. 1323049012 I CRY OF RENTON KC PARCEL NO, 3779200117 CRY OF RENTON 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) CG cc 134+00-� cc cc INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT CG—aCC_CG cc 135+00 _ - REVISIONS DATE B7 DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN Li LEI IEli —GO—Cc INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT -_....`-- KC PARCEL NdT573041107E — — CI1Y OF RENTON PLAN SCALE IN FEET v 0 20 40 x� co—cCC-i a*—c _ _ 1 LINE _ _ 136+00-= WETLAND 1/2 COMPLEX ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY WETLAND BUFFER 4440+ f / t - z = 137+00 ��.r"j , A► WETLAND BUFFER PLAN KC PARCEL NO. 1323049012 CRY OF MERIN WETLANDI/2 • COMPLEX 'E 24- A;,- , ID' A!" -3 -2 VL ,-A\/47111 // INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT f --WETLAND 1 / 2 COMPLEX II PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 'yeti t.,- /y l 7-/ Flo o y41 DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. OREMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. OREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. OADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. OINSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. O8 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. O9 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. CI REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 0 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 12 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. CI ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. O NOT USED. INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. ®INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. OINSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: ..,', xt —0-0— • SAWCUT DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION nGennl ITiriki AKin DRAVANG NO. 15 OF 47 Friday, April 03. 2015 1: 56 • NT_ \ 100—YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) 31a�` .41 139+00—140+00 y_ 3i= 1 141+00 142+00K cD a �iNE—� - — - �cc S-zc \• ,- co` a-=•Ex--'� • _.._cc - • Tl--moo.. cccct+-` )Sf., f <M� - . i' r—'',�...s .:�— _-�� —aG !�— laj l 4 1 Y INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT WETLAND 2A KC PARCEL N0. '1323049012 ,'. CITY OK RENTON KC PARCEL NO. 1323049090 CRY OF RENTON - - A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAM WETLAND 1/2 COMPLEX ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT KC PARCEL NO. 13230490/8 CITY OF RENTON -O I I PROJECT NAME 7 WETLAND 1/2 COMPLEX KC PARCEL NO. 1323049089 CRY OF RENTON O +17 ES AVE SW WETLAND 1/2 COMPLEX LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL DEMOLITION NOTES: OMAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AI,'.CJJ ii7F11RMAlIVi4. OREMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 3 REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT • DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. `/ ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C—SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWAL INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. OREMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 10 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. 0 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 12 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED ▪ GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 14 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 15 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. RE R TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET 0 FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP —RESISTANT, ADA—COMPLIANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 18 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. O NOT USED. O INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN 4 ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. O INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1—C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISH GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIN WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON TH PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: / / / / / i. x —D—D— • SAWCUT DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION —1 I nrmni I-rinki Akin DRAWING NO. 16 OF 47 DATE: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:57:13 PM U: \PS0\Project,\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L25T\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T2000\Dwg\ 1.00 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN - (1995 FIRM) 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) 8 / STA 17+49, 39.2 L - 102+00- - — — — 8 - POSSIBLE GROUND IMPROVEMENT LIMITS, TO BE DETERMINED STA-17+09, 35.9'LT STA 16+66,-35.91T OHWM -11.9' _ POSSIBLE GROUND IMPROVEMENT LIMITS, TO BE DETERMINED A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN I CO Q` STA 16+12;-36.0'L'T-. s,. I I STA 16+08, 27.11T' ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY NM _ME 36' 1YP BLACK RIVER 7e I ' A.4 ± 9, 241.1'LT 8� gas ar_.cc STA 17+14, 36.0'RT STA 16+68, 36.0'RT • 1 --- -__--' ■ ---1 -I J I+�-- SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 OHWM -12.6' . OHWM -11.9' _............. ,.... . ... F'Ji -! 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (1995 FIRM) 8 STA 16+08, 36:0 RT I I PROJECT NAME T_ ----- .- - LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL _J u DEMOLITION NOTES: 0 MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS INFORMATION. 02 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKER. 3 REMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. 0ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. ® REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. O6 INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 07 REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 09 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 10 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. O2 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED 1GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SEE DET Q FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOT BARRIER. '® 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SUP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPUANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER MtILK BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: ®INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. 0NOT USED. ®INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. ®INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. 5 INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. 6 SANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHEC GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL MAY BE UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. LEGEND: / / / / / CED • SAWCUT DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. TDA BOUNDARY CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL x HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION nFMnI ITInM Anin DRAWING NO. 17 OF 47 16' PAN D: \PSO\ProJecte\Clients\1521—KkngCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Swa\CADD\Phase A\Tank 2T2000\Dw9\ 3:1 TYP SEE NOTE 1 FOR SECTION A WALL 14 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WTIH NATIVE SOILS - 9' R' I R' i' S111.DR PAVED TRAIL PAVED TRAIL PROFILE 2% MAX I GRADE S11USR • A-UNE STA 1+00 TO 10+36 A-UNE STA 11+25 TO 15+38 A -LINE STA 15+96 TO 16+28 B-LINE STA 104+60 TO 106+15 B-LINE STA 125+45 TO 126+75 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 3:1 TYP EE NOTE 2 FOR SECTION A EXISTING GROUND iTrr SECTION A NOTES* 1. 0.5% FROM A—UNE STA 4+34 LT TO STA 4+82 LT. 2. 2:1 FROM A —LINE STA 11+50 RT TO STA 13+00 RT. 3. B—UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 104+00 TO SECTION A AT STA 104+60. 4. B—UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 106+15 TO SECTION C AT STA 106+75. 5. B—UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 124+85 TO SECTION A AT STA 125+45. 6. 8—LINE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 126+75 TO SECTION C STA 127+35. EXISTING GROUND TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE WALL /1 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER A REVISONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN WALL #5 TOP OF ROADWAY [EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WTM NATIVE SOILS ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY 1 2' 8' I 8' 2' SHLD'R PAVED TRAIL I PAVED TRAIL ,— PROFILE 2% MAX I GRADE a S1ILDR _ w.� -'� T.;�: :r.."-', .^. a--: .1*(2) A-UNE STA 10+36 TO 11+25 TYPICAL SECTION n NO SCALE 8.5' 4 I VARIES 0'-6' /• 3:1, TYP VARIES EXISTING BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB C-UNE STA 201+19 TO 201+43 TYPICAL SECTION f1 NO SCALE VARIES C-LINE STA 201+43 TO 203+58 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 2' MIN. O DEPTH VARIES r—EXISTING GROUND EXISTING GROUND 6ffmrsa WALL j2 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS 11s' 7' 6' I R' 7' giLDR SHLDR PAVED TRAIL PROFILE GRADE I I PAVED TRAIL 2x wIA± 2.5'O2 4. B-LINE STA 101+87 TO 104+00" B-LINE STA 106+75 TO 124+85 B-LINE STA 127+35 TO 143+18 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER • SEE NOTES 3, 4, 5, AND 6 FOR SECTION A ** SEE DETAILED GRADING AT SHEET C15 WALL /3A AND WALL 1313 EXISTING GROUND `<NATIVESO ILS RESTORED WITH TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE 6' RED BRICK RUNNING BOND STAMPED CONCRETE, TYP ,—GRADE TO DRNN I I PROJECT NAME VARIES 1' TYP TO 2'-8' AT WALL APPROACHES TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE [GRADE TO DRAIN RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND AT MONSTER ROAD TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL u EXISTING GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: O HMA CL 3/8' PG 64-22. O CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE. ✓ SELECT BORROW INCL HAUL O CEMENT CONCRETE SDEWALK PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-30.10-03. O HMA CL 1/2' PG 64-22. O 4" TOPSOIL TYPE A AND SEEDING AND FERTIUZING BY HAND. OGRAVITY BLOCK WALL O CEMENT CONC TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-10.12-03. O 4' HIGH BLACK VINYL FENCE TYPE 6 WITH TOP RAIL PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 10 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I DRAWING NO 18 OF 4i 015 3:01:38 PM 8 -.L BEGIN PROJECT BP STA9+00,, 35 l• 30 ' PV1 STA 1+00.00 �EL=23.17 • 25 ,GREEN RIVER TRAIL _ 1!„ ,1..-- ---- �-`------ lam• .. / - 4 0.09% \ • EASEMENT #7203020421 150' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH 3+00 A -LINE FORT DENT PARK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 FINISHED GRADE , \ti HWM —STA 434, 8.0'LT BEGIN,/0.5% CUT SLOPE SLEET SIDE ONLY) 4z r STA 1 +00 TO STA 10+36 KC PARCEL N0. 2323049001 DIY a TUKIMLA 100' VC TRACT 36 RENTON SIIORElANDS—Ax,/ STA 4+82, 8.0'LT END 0.5% CUT SLOPE LEFT SIDE ONLY) V /KC PARCEL N0. 7225503360 114.4 cm a TucyLA TRACT 36 RENTON SNORElAMS BLACK RIVER KC PARCEL 40. 7229500360 KING COINIY I IWw/ co F W IV Q l2 PVI STA 4+60.00 EL=22.84' K=54.18 20r —1- 15+ 10 rt t N 1�10-Ii0 M �iM M 2+00 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN rr, 0 ^j M ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY EXISTING i GROUND 3+00 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' +- + 4+00 t 1 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 O O 10 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. NOT USED 0 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET 01. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 16 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 17 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 0 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. 19 INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY 35 TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. 30 25 -1.94% 20 x R csi 15 —I 10 0 N 0 5+00 5+50 I I PROJECT NAME ___--.- - LAKE T TO SOUND TRAIL GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: CMS DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING N0. 19 OF 47 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: Frldoy. April 03. 2015 3:0 U: \PSO\Projects\CIlents\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ BLACK RIVER 1/ 1 1 OHWM Ur W1 _ CO Z_ —---P--- J F-----E 1_N 35 T - - 30 25 20 15 10 KC PARCEL N0. 9,T0360 KING cDLN�,'r TRACT 37 RENTON SHORE1ANDS KC PARCEL N0. 7229500360 CITY OF luau TRACT 36 RENION SHOREUNDS KC PARCEL 4R0: 2323049001 - CTIY:-0EIUKMU.. tool VC KC PARCEL 0 w 0 STA 6+f.4_ .11:15 -- GIN 15 z m OVERHEAD WATERLINE _ 16 -J a wg oZ — Y - KC PARCEL NO. 7229500320 Z w V) U Q O—Ix 0 - '- �C_-� s RL --- 7+1)0_ + I ° Aa..INE ---- --18 --- - -STA 6+64, 9.0 RT BEGIN 15 ' KC PARCEL NO. 23230 9005' - HELD CURRENT FIELD LOCATED CENTERLINE OF EASTERLY BNSF RAILS. 6+00 PVI STA 6+25.00 EL-19.65' K=92.63 co Cn A 1 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN i 00 CO CC 8,00 PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 7+00 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE_ IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY KC PARCEL NO. 7229500340 0.19. RR AND NAV. CO. LESSEE - UPRR ANMARCO KC PARCEL N0. 7229500330 0.W. RR AND NAV. CO. LESSEE - UPRR OHWM_��_� ; _ -STA 8+31, 9.011 END e KC PARCEL N0. 2323049003 0.W. RR AND NW. CO. LESSEE - UPRR -0.86% 07 A -LINE PROFILE XN_ W B N Z 8+00 HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' STA 8+31, 9.G' END _KG PARCEL N0.1423049008 4 O.W. RBVID 4069_ CD. _ Cf55EE - UPRR FINISHED GRADE— -- 1 1001 VC J PVI STA 0 0+00.00 EL'116.44'- K=10.82 35 130 EXISTING] GROUND u N t o - 9+00 2-12" SD s 90 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 25 20 15 10 NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 ANC HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. O BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. 8 GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. 0 INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-18. 10 NOT USED O INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 0 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 SHEET INSTALL D3.FENCED CANOPY PER 0 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITHGRATE. ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE 18 1s 20 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES 01 SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 20 OF 47 NC PARCEL ND. 7229500320 ~CO BLACK RIVER — _ ... _ ---- 7---- \'''.77'-,7. / . , ';,' \ -,„,- ‘3'- -.)•,,, N..... so 45 35 L 30 25 1. '•••••=,- - KC PARCEL NO. 7229500330 0.W. RR MD NAV. CO. IMCFE - UPRR ei403-10 ofi. Vs10.4.4 - - -44 • . ‘c,./ STA 10+4,6 TO , STA 11-F25 4 / C W / KC PARCEL NO. 1423049008 100 VC PVI STA 0+00.00 EL=16.44' K=19.82 20 f- 15 7 0 --r 0.W. RR AND NAV. CO. LESSEE - UPRR 8 d 0 / ---- / e)>" „ vigNo" 12+00 STA 11+50 BEGIN 2:1 SIDESLOPES (RIGHT SIDE ONLY) EXISTING GROUND— \ - 1- / ' - F ----- *LINE- - -- ---- F - • r -^Fo PLAN - SCALE-N-FEET 0 20 40 4 19% - 00 '0 119 11+00 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN 81 8111 1 1111 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY -+ 1. STA 13+00 END 2:1 SIDESLOPES (RIGHT SIDE ONLY) BVC STA '13+10.00 80 12+00 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1"=20' VERT: 1"=5. co 05 . r-, 61 a 67ffmali • Cs! 13+00 SE' __— BLACK RIVER-- ----—..-s-- --- in pmcELTHO.,- / - - 4 -------' / CIIT OF-RENION - -- i ,.......A,......... ...4.-...4}-7.._ KC PARCEL NO. 7229508310--- . KW COUNTY PER mu REPORT "1EE C5 MONSTER ' ROAD PHAN ,WION AND GRADING 150' VC PVI STA 13+85.00 ' EL-32.57 _ K=25.75 4 _ - - • TA_14+23, PT -- BEGIN • • • = - - T STA 14+33, WALL 1 - -1=63% , so - 45 -F- 0 FINISHED GRADE I I PROJECT NAME 14+00 4 0,8 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 11 35 30 25 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. a BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 F. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. NOT USED INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1 . INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET Di. INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET Di. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET Di. INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET 03. INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C 1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 2. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: amp DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. 20 — — — — TDA BOUNDARY ROADWAY PAVEMENT REPAIR. SEE APPLICABLE SECTIONS ON SHEET CS1. CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK PATTERNED CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY, DETAILS PROVIDED AT 90% SUBMITTAL DRIVEWAY RESTORATION, 4-IN COMMERCIAL HMA OVER 4-IN CSTC 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 21 OR 47 ldoy. April 03. 2015 3: 00 0 E PATH: U: \PS0\Projects\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 27200C\Dwg\ WALL 1 STA 15+30, 9.0'RT END 20 ao 35 30-- 25 20 15 10{ 5 -- 15+00 M SFF4rcti 4' uAFTF 0,7 Q • o'I , PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 If --- - _2.689 .50% D 06% - EXISTING GRADE ACROSS MONSTER ROAD TO REMAIN UNCHANG D MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C6 B-LINE STA,102+66 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C6 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE • M - N Q I REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN L S IONE INCH A~ ALE. IF NOT. 6CALE ACCORDINGLY N n N 4 z N 16+0- 0 N T03 N PROFILE BEE S SHEETS 4 O nnz HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' WALL #2 21 AI 35 30 -2 00Y 2 EL=22.57, 100-YEAR FL00DPLNN (1995 FIRM) -1 SURFACE WATER ELEV. TIDALLY INFLUENCED I, 25 LI20 - t 15 10 ▪ } I 5 ^ N .i N N .:-'IN LL fV --. L __1 - _1 L 17+00 17+76 I I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AN HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. V BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. O9 INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 0 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 16 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 0 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 18 19 20 21 22 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES C SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: '! DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I i DRAWING NC 22OF4 rnIllemol DATE: Friday. April 03, 2015 2 PATH: U: \PSO\Protects\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T2000\Dwg\ 1(R� CPO �� `T\\ / STA 201+19, 9.4'JR -BEGIN STA -201+64, 7.2'L BEGIN, APY --STA 4'06© ccit-€)cx: X,(.1 .-GK Q SSG RP RIP M EA _ Reif ` - - STA:42+62,;-50C7��',_. __ BEGIN '\ J +-n ��4,4110 '. 12.0 ©. ©STA 202+99 _ zor CURB FLOW LINE ELEVATION DATA POINT ELEVATION DESCRIPTION NORTHING EASTING 100 MATCH EXIST. FL 101 MATCH EXIST. FL AT APPROACH SLAB 102 30.77 FL 103 30.60 FL 104 30.26 FL 105 29.62 FL 106 29.00 FL, AP 107 28.17 FL 108 27.33 FL 109 26.34 FL 110 25.92 FL, PC NOTE: ADDITIONAL GRADING FOR SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, RAMPS AND TRAFFIC ISLANDS TO BE PROVIDED WITH 90-PERCENT SUBMITTAL. THE POINTS SHOWN HERE WERE PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN R=50' 204+00 \ R=500' STA 203+66, 2.8'RT °END, AP - - -STA 202+66, 11.9'RT STA 03+58, 40.5'RT AP END C-LINE STA 202+52= A -LINE STA 15+65 N: 176357.20 E: 1290804.15 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY RIM=29.00-_ 12"IE=25.19 (E) +4 25 EIRIM=28.48 12"IE=24.61 (S) , LF Nc =\ R=2' - T STA 204+07, 5.9'LT --BEGIN 0 77 STA 204+06, 5.5'RT BEGIN° TIT STA--2U4+57; 5 842T- - ENDO 205+00 MONSTER ROAD PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 T LJ10 F S=5.50% STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAIL 1 "=10' - II PROJECT NAME I/, STA 205+96, 7.9'RT n END IM=26.49 12"IE=19.58 (W) 1► -19.58 (S) n 10 F LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL - I I 206+00 'RT - CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: u INSTALL CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-30.10-01. INSTALL CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. INSTALL CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. INSTALL PERPENDICULAR CURB RAMP PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-40.15-02. INSTALL SINGLE DIRECTION CURB RAMP PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-40.16-02. RAISE/REPLACE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN TO FINISHED GRADE. -CHANNELIZATION NOTES: O O DOUBLE YELLOW CENTER LINE WITH RPM' PER COR STD. PLAN H001 AND H007. THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK PER COR STD. PLAN 127. THERMOPLASTIC 24-INCH STOP BAR PER COR STD. PLAN H008. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-45.10-01. WIDE LANE LINE PER DTL 1, COR STD PLAN H008.2. PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW PER COR STD. PLAN H009. GORE AREA MARKINGS WITH RPM'S, PER COR STD. PLAN H008. STORM DRAINAGE NOTES: INSTALL CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 PER WSDO STD. PLAN B-5.20-01 WITH RECTANGULA VANED GRATE PER WSDOT STD PLAN B-30.30-01. INSTALL TB TYPE 1 PER WSDOT STD PLAN 8-5.20-01 WITH RECTANGULAR SOLID METAL COVER PER WSDOT STD PLAN B-30.20-02. CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. i INSTALL CB TYPE 2 48" DIAM. PER WSDOT STD PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH RECTANGULAR VANED GRATE PER WSDOT STD PLAN B-30.30-01. ❑6 UTILITY CONFLICT. POTHOLE TO VERIFY UTILITY LOCATION AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES ARE NOT CALLED OUT WHERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN CURB RAMP DETAILS. LEGEND: ROADWAY PAVEMENT REPAIR. SEE APPLICABLE SECTIONS ON SHEET CS1. CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PATTERNED CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY, DETAILS PROVIDED AT 90% SUBMITTAL DRIVEWAY RESTORATION, 4-IN COMMERCIAL HMA OVER 4-IN CSTC 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 23 OF 47 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: April 03. 2015 3: 06: 52 PM E U: \PSO\Protects\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\CADD\Phase A\T4s4. 2T200C\Dwg\ S 1Y ADS N_3n.56 _ r[ IB CONS SW30.C2 �� RMA 3 80 UD BEGIN B-LINE°99+, 7 ifF'2; Qs NW=3, SS 72 ADS SE= 2A1A4 -n- �` ri I�J' V 50 45 40 f 35r- 0 25 20 - CF IC 12' ADS L 99+85 100+00 WETLAND BUFFER COTTON, 1 -3 _" i1 CI ^. 4'_ /_ tY l rr� - -r 7—. `-_T.2 �IU7r 2 1r ^ _- -� B-LINE- KC PARCEL N0. 3PB200119' cm .oF RwroN _ KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 BNEF ' "STA 101+87; -10:0'1211 • 1 tOJ 0_ t5E 101+00 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN i EXISTING GROUND .4- 1 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY STA 101+87 TO STA 104+00 IWACC-�3P, STA 1132+34,. =2Q8'R _END • PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 PVI STA! 101+87.36 I EL=26194 2.92% 102+00 B-LINE PROFILE SS 9.9PE"VARIES SEE DET �,_ EKG-FMRCfl-ND-200119 - =ice CRV 04 RENTON3779 '---'" B-LINE STA 102+65.48= WETLANDS A �A=LINE STA 17+76_ N: 176559.88 y-�E:Z1 o7a9.s1 ---- — - 1-42-® �25 Am it 100' VC FINISHED + . .GRADF -I.so% 0.50% -1.07% HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' N PVI STA 103+60.22 FI=26.64_ ._. K-59.45 50 45 40 35 4 30 +. n • 103+00 Cn M LL' � h __ 1 II PROJECT NAME 25 104+00 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AN[ HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. 0 INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 11 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. tq INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 8 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 0 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 18 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. 19 INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES 0 SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: TA DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 24 OF 47 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: mIllemol DATE: Friday. April 03. 2015 3:07:58 PM 0 084 125T\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ U: \P50\Projects\Clients\1521—King a WETLAND 5 yzrk • • 50 - 45 - - 00' VC PVI SiA 103-I 60.22 40E1=26.6. ' - K=59.4 - 105+00 STA 104+50, 1O.0'RT --END C-B#3" -801kIE STA 10-5+06. 13,7'LT -a1M=25.9 12"IE=23:8t�SE)�� 2c-r —sue'. \.. - -✓ins; 13 LF F___-_F__ STA 104+60 TO STA 106+15 KC PARCEL N0. 3779200119 - "'� --i � - COY OF RFMON - . FINISHED GRADE 0.16 CROSS SLOPE TRANSITIONS ,FROM SECTION A TO SECTION'C PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 ' —WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND 6 100' VC KC PARCEL NO. 1323049020 BNSF i >�--_--� �---�--:------. ----- :� -fir`- - ws-'a - -- ---1�—I -----°-- (/) PVI STA 106+72.35 EL=27.21' K=74.17 N +00 > W „F. 1, 1 STA 106+75 TO 124+85 /�UFFAND l BUFFER 1 I KC PARCEL N0. 3779200119 CITY OF RENTON 20' WIDE WING WALL EASEMENT NO. 6626569 25 20 CO0 cn 0 N 105+00 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J DVORAK DRAWN M. MII I FR EXISTING GROUND 10 N ONE INCH Al FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY -F 04 " N 106+00 B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' N 107+00 t 1.53% I0 0- I I PROJECT NAME a qa I i 100' -VC PVI STA 168+72.35 EL=30.27' K=72.19 N 108+00 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL co co a, N /N u NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 O O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20 10-02 AND C-1B. NOT USED INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 • 50 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. • :i45 40 35 30 25 20 N 0 IM 108+75 18 19 (,;.1)INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: f DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60°/D REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I DRAWING NO. 25 OF 47 PLOTTED BY: mlllemal DATE: Friday, April 03, 2015 3:08:49 PM U: \P50\Projects\Clients\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\995vcs\CADD\Phase 409+00 - - - _ - - - 14q+00 - 1 r ci -a I.- II 1 50,- 40 35 1 100'IVC `'- PVI STA 1(8+72.35 EL=3(.27' K=72.19 0.15i KC PARCEL NO. 1323049020 BNSF - ---c--= -�T INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT—, I� 2R -�. _F_-_�.�• F--L F _F F f F F L 111+00 -a B-NNEE_ _ T-112+00 I +00 1J ---- F- - •_ F . too- ' - yc PVI STA 110+72.35 EL-30.66' K=28.69 KC PARCEL N0. 3779200119 CITY OF RENTON PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 30 25 20 +. N 00 -,N O r O 108+75 109+00 ci 110+00 -1 Q REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN 0) 0 M EVC STA 111+22.35 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY 111+00 -(00` FINISHED GRADE -3.3 EXISTING GROUND z t B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' M N 67ffimempl PVI STA 112+22.35 EL=25 55' K=35.I97 1 -0.5 N N 113+00 I I PROJECT NAME T'^ LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL u 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 co N 113+50 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 ANC HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. OBEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. 0 INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 0 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER ▪ SHEET D3. 8 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 20 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE • WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES 0 SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 26 OF 47 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: prll 03. 2015 3: 1 -- -- INGRESS, EGRESS S� I ` ,' AND UTILITY EASEMENT� 3 /''�-- _ --- 2g '_ - k F _F 1 F r _ T _—------- _ 2E� - F _-_-F_-_ F F F � F F+ � _� 24 i--F---- __ _ ---F m F F OFF , F� l.... _ _115400— 'J — _ ��.+00 _ —1-- — T Ti m KC PARCEL NO 3779200119 i m 1 -- CRT Of RENTON ev_' KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 BNSF —I1 9- \,' 40 r 35 30 - -- 25 FINISHED GRADE — --�F — -Fr- - __ P!L 1 -�e'---_3; . cc• .10 36 ---2c 262E -- -+F�rG�.-F---F••C---B -�_. C-�F ...�-LL�i�: -_ _�i.��-r�F _JF _ F.I W 116_t00 - — - -- .8-L1NE ' - .+ -_ �17+00 ( -—118+Op = `H, r .,nt T- z z* c. F ____F_____ 0 .. ----------------- INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 56% T�� r --- r 4� -22 KC PARCEL N0. 3779200118- cm( OF RENTON PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 - 35 20 +--- 15 co N C. 0 In N CO N EXISTING GROUND fi 0 AA- r N xN w N Z rl 0 N 60 0.19% rJ CO N r N oo ti N CO N 113+50 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN A rn ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' II PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CCP`_AAC\IT A I I cv co N 30 l.F--- Lam"" F L-F �-JF1--__F�-• NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. I O BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10 08 GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. OINSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 10 11 12 13 14 15 NOT USED INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 0 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 17 16 19 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 40 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT 25 PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 20 15 LEGEND: DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I DRAWING NO. 27OF47 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: April 03, 2015 3:10, 30 PM E 7 8 U 2 0 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 ENSF _ P L r� INGRESS, EGRESS 1 1%� i J"a; ` AND --------- Is UTILITI EASEMENTq . `-.-._- ---J -- _ <�!� 2e �� 3__ J -�--_-_-F F F F F F F - F____ of C--�._ f 1 __ - -- I=_�F �____F F__-'_F F---�-'� _ _ - _ -- - - _ - - __ - - -- --- �_ F- f �_ _.. _ _--l'__F LLI �11 _ -- 1 —F_ = F� F F 7- 21+00 123+00 -i _ W i �F % gF_ _F_20+00 s _ T-- 1 in r �1ag+oo — _ -----_ ------ --- _ I w -I-- - 1-------F-_ �� - ---4 F F F F F F __ - —2�' _ Z -- _ ��____F _ F �__F_____F_ F F F F +- -- - - - _ _ F-____F___-_F--_- :, t - -- F...-_-F--- F -F_-- 7 - -F-----F-__-_ `I 1 - -F"---- _____ F' F r--- �F__+--F-', ( .. W __..__ r"F-----F- IJ I <() i. 2 I rn ------------- INGRESS, EGRESS mf__-- AND UTILITY EASEMENT -d 1 0 (I 35 30 25 20 F 15 1I r r KC PARCEL NO. 3779200118 1 CRY OF RENTON 1 , 10 r N 118+50 u. O N ' M] N N 119+00 1- 0.19% 0' to 0 (V FINISHED GRADE EXISTING GROUND 120+00 N A REVISIONS DATE BY ONE INCH A~ CALE. DRAWN IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY I DESIGNED J. DVORAK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 KC PARCEL NO. 3779200117 CITY OF RENTON B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' ------------------ -------------------------- 9- T CN O In O ' N ",N 122+00 - -1-32% N I!) ' N ^' N J. I I PRO.ECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL ' N 123+00 i NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 ANE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. Q BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. Og INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 0 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. O INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 16 17 18 19 20 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 35 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE 21 WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 30 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. 25 GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 20 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES 0 SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 15 LEGEND: 1E2',) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. 10 — — — — TDA BOUNDARY f) CO NLO ~' N N I I 123+50 60°/0 REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING N0. 28 OF 47 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: P1L -.o 1 3 _• 0E F_--- rZ Z m N m — (n i • nr INGRESS, EGRESS ANQ_ 111LITY EASEMENT 26 _ L4 _-124-tom KC PARCEL N0. 3779200117 CPI OF RENTON 40 I 35 1 30 1.32% 25 20 15 r CO N 123+50 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 EINSF ROSS SECTION'T111SITION�_ ON ECTION C-LEGT 1--_- - . ,_ _ _ _�'�— - ST_A���_{98-,"-V0 T RFINPT CONC CULVERT F- tip•--`-F SEE SHEET SD1 -jL I" WETLAND 4 t'. 7- Z� WALL #fly._ 1; 9 WAIF -45 21 — WETLAND 3 PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 1_..._150'VC KC PARCEL N0. 37792011117 CRY OF RENTON --7 — - _ --- — P�� - --------------------------------- . ;�f20Ss S€CTION TRANSITIONS FR - �- -- ----- F-____F----- STA 125+45 T0. STA 126+75_ ..• -F PVI STA 125+92.35 EL=28.78' K-44.54 . FINISHED _GRADE --- SIN A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN CD -f 125+00 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY -2.05% WETLAND BUFFER STA 127+22.S5 1- -__128+00 KC PARCEL NO. 1323049012 CITY Or RENTON t W W y STA 127+35 TO IW STA 143+18 IZ J V INGRESS, EGRESS IQ AND UTILITY EASEMENT I2 i i 150VC J PVI STA 127+97.35'' EL=24.58' K=36.07 40 35 30 111 `EXISTING 1 GROUND B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' 0, O N CO Y'9 N q N 127+00 II PROJECT NAME M I1f vi LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 128+00 - 25 — 20 u 15 I10 ' N 128+50 NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. O O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. NOT USED INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 17 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. ig INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. 19 INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: Sri DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I DRAWING NO. 29 OF 47 Friday, April 03, 2015 0 E U: \P50\Projects\Clients\152I—KingCo\554-1521-084 L25T\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ oE�e' - Fla-P• OrrCC_9' 0 — -O. U_ri - —- KC PARCEL NO. 3779200117 CITY OF RENTON INGRESS, EGRESS,: AND UTILITY EASEMENT R7 J _______. ._ • 30 ___ _._____ 2E Z ` 129+00 — — — 13_1+00 B-LINE -_-_- _-_ �E;-v — _- F— _----- -� ;F-_=__F F "r F ___....`.__ r F F m No 2 r I ------------- 2' �I 0 O�_ ���---0--0-- 501 40 35 1' 30 1- 150' VC th STA 127+0.; EL=24.58 K-36.07 25 f- 20 co^ lf) N 7 17 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049012 CNY OF RENTON 140' VC T N N 2.11% 128+50 129+00 PVI STA 129+47.35 EL-27.75' K=39.28 A 130+22.35 00 KC PARCEL N0. 1323049012 CITY OF RENTON PLAN �l SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 100' VC PVI STA 130+72.35 EL=25p3' K=26.4-8 -1.458 to N 4- 0 EA 10 N FINISHED GRADE 2.32 (D N f. CJ N N 2 KC PARCEL NO. 1323049020 RNSF �O. 132400_ - - - I Ir INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT ir ;WETLAND 1 / 2 COMPLEX / 0 INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. • CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: E :a' a: 54t - / - / 1a 02 N-102 O INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - / 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. I PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 010 NOT USED `':.'-/V 11 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD Z.. PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 44/ 0INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. / 47`'CJ NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 ANC HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. OBEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 /�� INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 0INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 0 0 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 50' VC PVI STA 132+47.35 EL=30.00' K=18.91 CO CO N tO CO N EXISTING GROUND -D 32% C ^ V S; Fs;N ig INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT 50 STD PLAN FS-2. 45 35 30 25 20 (O N 130+00 131+00 132+00 133+00 133+50 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1"=20' VERT: 1"=5' II PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL (TN INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 022 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBING OF TREES 0 SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: TDA DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 30 OF 47 015 3:12:06 PM PLOTTED BY: mdlemal DATE Friday, Apri U: \P50\Projects\Chen is\1521—KIngCo\554— ri KC PARCEL N0. 1323049020 / - KC PARCEL N0. 3779200117 COY OF RDRON -2- 'F .' F ---- F----F-__-- --' — _ iD F F _____ F__---F,- ___ ________-- — VINGRESS, EGRESS mAND UTIUTY EASEMENT 50• 45 40 35 35 + 30 25 C'>I NI ---------------------- '2 F--- F--- F - ----`• +00 / - F____-- F_____F_�___ 137*00= F__l __F___�_F_____F P�_�__F- _F-__'_F PLAN F---- F---------- SCALE IN FEET WETLANDI/2 ii COMPLEX 0 20 40 FINISHED ' GRADE Y 20 l• N 133+50 134+00 EXISTING GROUND N 0) 135+00 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRANN ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY 0) IN KC PARCEL N0. 1323049012 CRY OF RENTON B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' 7 137+00 II PROJECT NAME INGRESS. EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 0 WETLAND 1/2 COMPLEX I 02 rn 50 1 45 '75' VC PM ST'A. 138+47.35 EL=26.25' 40 K=19.39 6 n N LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 138+00 Ito IN 35 30 25 20 0 ' 138+50 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. OBEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE 8 CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. O INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 — 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. O NOT USED O INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET DI. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY—DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE Cl PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE—LIMBING OF TREES OR SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: Sri DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAYANG NO. 31 OF 47 emal DATE: Friday, April 03, 2015 3:12:59 U: \P50\Protects\Clients\1521—KIngCo\554-1521-084 L25T\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ 40 1 ' p a _F X F cr 75' VC PVI STA 138+47.35 EL=26.25' 35 h-=19..391-- - N 90 30 25 20 15 F - 10 - O 00 N N 138+50 co a N M 18) M N w KC11'88CEL 80. 1323049012 CITY OF RENTON TS r s INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT ------- 140+00 KC PARCEL NO. 1323049090 CITY OF RENTON 50' VC PVI STA 13 +47.35 EL=21. 5' K-17. 6 1,4 t FINISHED GRADE N 40 139+00 12" Sq WETLAND 1/2 COMPLEX 14, M < V 0 E EXISTING GROUND WETLAND 2A JLL_41 1E < rTr 12 j4 STA 142+50 STA 142+84 t- - - 4 liNlF. 141+00_ ,142+00k < <---- t-1 - k • 7 1 a o P PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 4 50' VC PVI STA 14Q+47.35 EL-19.p6' K=17. 1 r 1 INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT -2.19. a 11 G KC PARCEL N0. 1323049088 CRY OF RENTON ?- 4 WETLAND 1/2 JJJJJJ rnMPLEY KC PARCEL N0. 1323049089 CITY OF RENTON O 44Z END PROJECT EP STA 143+17.37 s` J NACRES AVE W WETLAND 1 / 2 COMPLEX LO O N A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN ro 140+00 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY -{- N • N r2 a, 0> 141+00 B-LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1"=5' 4_ co 0> cn Oi 142+00 II PROJECT NAME 0) LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL u CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. OBEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. OINSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 - 6 FT. LONG POST PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-02 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 0INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD 0 PER DETAIL 1, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER 15 SHEET D3. 18 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 17 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. ig INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. eINSTALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL TYPE 6 PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. riN INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. SEE WP AND WD SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 40 L2 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE PROFILE ON SHEET D2. 35 20 15 t 143+00 143+17 GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ROOT PRUNING AND DE-LIMBiNG OF TREES OF SHRUBS ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. LEGEND: =ID DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — — — — TDA BOUNDARY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION u DRANING N0. 32 OF 47 April 03, 2015 2:05:51 PM —084 L25T\995vcs\DAOD\Phose A\Task 2T2000\Dwg\ V: \P5o\Projects\clients\15 SIGN SCHEDULE SIGN NO. PROPOSED LOCATION STA OFF DESCRIPTION MUTCD SIGN SIZE POST SIZE/TYPE REMARKS - SEE NOTE 4 1 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK D3-1 _ X 9" N/A SEE NOTE 1, BACK TO BACK WITH SIGN 2. 2 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK D3-1 _ X 9" N/A SEE NOTE 1, BACK TO BACK WITH SIGN 1. 3 C 4+46 STOP HERE ON RED R10-6a 24"X30" 4"X4" / WOOD 4 C 5+38 STOP HERE ON RED R10-6a 24"X30" 4"X4" / WOOD 5 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 6 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 7 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 8 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 9 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 10 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 11 A 13+70 SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3 18"X18" 4"X4" / WOOD 12 C 5+00 BIKE ROUTE D11-1 24"X18" 4"X4" / WOOD 13 B 100+56 BIKE ROUTE D11-1 24"X18" 4"X4" / WOOD 14 C 2+51 BIKE ROUTE D11-1 24"X18" N/A NOTE 2. 15 C 5+00 ARROW M6-1 12"X9" 4"X4" / WOOD 16 B 100+56 ARROW M6-1 12"X9" 4"X4" / WOOD 17 C 2+51 ARROW M6-1 12"X9" N/A NOTE 2. 18 B 100+50 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A N/A 4"X4" / WOOD EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. 19 B 142+97 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A N/A N/A PROTECT IN PLACE 20 B 143+15 NO DUMPING N/A N/A 4"X4" / WOOD EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. 21 B 143+15 NO STOPPING OR STANDING N/A N/A N/A REMOVE AND DISPOSE NOTES: 1. MOUNT ON MAST ARM, PER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD PLAN G011. 2. MOUNT ON SIGNAL OR LIGHT STANDARD, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN G-30.10-01. 3. FLUORESCENT YELLOW -GREEN BACKGROUND. 4. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE IN THE REMARKS. 5. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR SIGN LOCATIONS. A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN POINT ELEVATION NORTHING EASTING 200 28.31 176555.06 1290767.16 201 28.31 176542.07 1290767.53 202 28.57 176527.76 1290770.99 203 28.57 176529.16 1290776.83 204 28.57 176530.57 1290782.67 205 28.31 176540.86 1290783.02 206 28.12 176548.83 1290786.71 207 27.94 176554.94 1290793.02 208 28.06 176559.94 1290789.70 209 28.18 176564.95 1290786.39 210 28.25 176559.42 1290777.00 211 28.18 176551.88 1290780.55 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN AA UII I FR ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN (203 DETAIL n 1 "=10' - 6=1 II PROJECT NAME To IGN PER PLANS AND SPECS. 414 PRESSURE TREATED FIR POST. INSTALL W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKFILL. PROVDE 4" COMMERCIAL CONCRETE CAP WHEN INSTALLED IN ASPHALT SURFACE. 3" TYP. POST -MOUNTED SIGNAGE NOTE: 1. USE 7' MOUNTING HEIGHT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNS. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL u 1) J_,Ii o1=11 ASPHALT TRAIL NOTE: 1. STAKE SIGN LOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL 2. SEE THIS SHEET FOR SIGN SCHEDULE. SIGNAGE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE n 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGN SCHEDULE AND I I DRAWING NO. 33 OF 47 50' 20' 1 0 ' IE 22.94 6" LEVELING PAD (CSTC) h N PRECAST REINF. CON . SPLIT BOX CULVERT N STA 125+95 (FACING WEST) PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=10' VERT: 1 "=5' Q RDASIONS DATE BY DESIGNED C. BUITRAGO DRAWN 511' 30' r NEATUNE OMIT FOR SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS A H PRECAST REINF CONC SPLFF BOX CULVERT— = GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR WALLS 20' LEVELING PAD - 10' ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY EgR L. d` 114 _ RIND TRAIL SURFACE CSTC (VARIES) 1. •4- 4wi-, STREAM a om'• t 3'-4" SECTION NO SCALE • �1' MIN STREAM BED MIX II PROJECT NAME TOP OF CULVERT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL FENCE NOTE 1 2 HMA CL 3/8" PG 64-22 CEMENT CONC CURB, TYP CSTC (VARIES) CULVERT COVER DETAIL NO SCALE FACE OF CURB CEMENT CONCRETE CURB DETAIL NO SCALE ANCHOR CURB TO CULVERT UD OR CAST AS ONE UNIT NOTE: 1. PLACE FENCE POSTS ON EITHER SIDE C CULVERT. DO NOT CONNECT TO CURB. 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 34 OF 47 50' 40' , - 30' 20' 10' 10' 1 STEEL PIP PIEF-TYP ABUTMENT 1 • STA = 16+29.98 ABUTMENT 1 = BRG STA 16+-29:98- ? ELEV = 28.57' PLAN (IN1"=10' r 109'-0" -- - — • -PRE-MANUFACTURED-BRIDGE 1 - - -TOP-OF-RAILING RIPRAP I 1� OHWM ELEVATION 11.91' SOUTH SIDE -TOP-OF -SLAB - _ - - RIPRAP? 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION 22.57' -r "—OHWM ELEVATION 12.66' — NORTH SIDE ABUTMENT 2 = BRG STA - 17 118 98 ELEV = 28.57' TEEL PIPE ILE, TYP EXISTING GRADE i 16+00 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. MERTH DRAWN A VAI FNCIA 16+50 ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY ELEVATION 1"=10' 17+00 immfim 17+50 rPROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CG"AAG\IT A -2.00z A -LINE PROFILE 1 TRAIL ALIGNMENT 1, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE _n" INSIDE OF TOP CHORD HANDRAIL PREMANUFACTURED ■ BRIDGE SAFETY RAIL VERTICAL POST STEEL BAR GRATING ■ FLOOR BEAM ■ TYPICAL PREMANUFACTURED BRIDGE SECTION 1/2"=1'-0" 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. 44 OF 47 Worksheet for Existing Ditch 125+95 Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.05260 ft/ft Normal Depth 1.00 ft Left Side Slope 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) Results Discharge 13.29 ft3/s Flow Area 2.00 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 4.47 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.45 ft Top Width 4.00 ft Critical Depth 1.22 ft Critical Slope 0.01793 ft/ft Velocity 6.64 ft/s Velocity Head 0.69 ft Specific Energy 1.69 ft Froude Number 1.66 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 1.00 ft Critical Depth 1.22 ft Channel Slope 0.05260 ft/ft Critical Slope 0.01793 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBtiatldjellawMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 6/25/2013 8:46:27 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet for BOX 125+95 - 1 ft depth Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.028 Channel Slope 0.05260 ft/ft Normal Depth 1.00 ft Height 2.00 ft Bottom Width 3.33 ft Results Discharge 29.62 ft3/s Flow Area 3.33 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 5.33 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.62 ft Top Width 3.33 ft Critical Depth 1.35 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.02281 ft/ft Velocity 8.89 ft/s Velocity Head 1.23 ft Specific Energy 2.23 ft Froude Number 1.57 Discharge Full 59.24 ft3/s Slope Full 0.21040 ft/ft Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 Downstream Velocity Infinity fUs Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SoIBlioti wMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 6/25/2013 8:49:54 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for BOX 125+95 - 1 ft depth GVF Output Data Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 1.00 ft Critical Depth 1.35 ft Channel Slope 0.05260 ft/ft Critical Slope 0.02281 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBliad wMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 6/25/2013 8:49:54 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Appendix F Grading Within the Floodplain - Cut and Fill Calculations Lake to Sound Trail April 2015 - Black and Green Rivers Floodplain Fill Impacts Prepared By: Checked By: MD 4/2/2015 CAB 4/6/2015 Station 1+00 Fill (sf) Exc (sf) Fill (cf) Exc (cf) 1.36 0.00 1+25 0.11 0.00 1.36 0.00 1+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1+75 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 2+00 0.03 0.00 1.94 0.00 2+25 0.13 0.00 3.98 0.00 2+50 0.19 0.00 3.61 0.00 2+75 0.10 0.00 9.81 0.00 3+00 0.69 0.00 8.56 0.00 3+25 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.00 3+50 0.21 0.00 12.47 0.00 3+75 0.78 0.00 20.90 0.00 4+00 0.89 0.00 20.64 0.00 4+25 0.76 0.00 9.53 21.87 4+50 0.00 1.75 0.00 73.88 4+75 0.00 4.16 120.01 52.01 5+00 9.60 0.00 264.89 0.00 5+25 11.59 0.00 259.38 0.00 5+50 9.16 0.00 205.25 0.00 5+75 7.26 0.00 182.88 0.00 6+00 7.37 0.00 198.38 0.00 6+25 8.50 0.00 208.63 0.00 6+50 8.19 0.00 252.75 0.00 6+75 12.03 0.00 322.63 0.00 7+00 13.78 0.00 320.63 0.00 7+25 11.87 0.00 285.00 0.00 7+50 10.93 0.00 228.75 0.00 7+75 7.37 0.00 176.00 0.00 floodplain Elevation = 19.00 ft floodplain Elevation = 22.57 ft City of Tukwila City Floodplain Fill City Floodplain Exc _ 3122.29 147.76 115.64 5.47 110.17 NGVD 29 FEMA 1995 Coverted to NAVD 88 NAVD 88 is project datum FIRM Panels 957 and 976 CF CY Total Impact (CY) City of Tukwila Lake to Sound Trail April 2015 - Black and Green Rivers Floodplain Fill Impacts Station 1 Fill (sf) Exc (sf) Fill (cf) I Exc (cf) 8+00 6.71 0.00 156.00 0.00 8+25 5.77 0.00 264.00 0.00 8+50 15.35 0.00 456.13 0.00 8+75 21.14 0.00 473.50 0.00 9+00 16.74 0.00 311.13 0.00 9+25 8.15 0.00 61.43 0.00 9+31.48 10.81 0.00 5.90 0.09 9+32.01 11.45 0.34 26.34 0.72 9+34.34 11.16 0.28 3.21 0.08 9+34.63 10.98 0.28 114.89 2.15 9+50 3.97 0.00 83.75 0.00 9+75 2.73 0.00 108.38 0.00 10+00 5.94 0.00 173.25 584.13 10+25 7.92 46.73 161.25 1600.00 10+50 4.98 81.27 180.38 1800.13 10+75 9.45 62.74 131.25 1248.50 11+00 1.05 37.14 13.13 805.50 11+25 0.00 27.30 0.00 341.25 11+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11+75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12+75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13+75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14+75 0.00 0.00 Total Fill Total Exc 6846.19 6530.30 216.53 241.86 Total Impact (CF) -684.11 Total Impact (CY) -26.34 Prepared By: MD 4/2/2015 Checked By: CAB 4/6/2015 floodplain Elevation = 19.00 ft NGVD 29 FEMA 1995 City of Renton City of Renton Citv Floodplain Fill City Floodplain Exc 2723.90 6382.55 100.89 236.39 -135.51 CF CY Total Impact (CY) Floodway Boundary F Y Appendix B Land Cover Area Calculations Appendix B - Land Cover Area Calculations Comments Newberg soils = Till Basic dispersion BNSF Overpass Basic dispersion Newberg soils = Till Basic dispersion Union Pacific Overpass Basic dispersion No dispersion KP Corp driveway, no LU change KCRTS Hourly, Historic Q100 = 0.08 cfs Q100 = 0.19 cfs (increase of 0.11 cfs) Proposed 1 co OQ Z O. w y Replanted Shrub/ Forest r r r o n v o 8 7794 0.179 12565 0.288 N cN`0 (:J O CO O CV -or N O N O CO O O O N CO O co O N o CO CO CYr Fs DO Isr 0 .v C N co U co O co . . CO 0 N 0 0 • • • N 0 m a E I CU E Z N Z y o f F O co0, N h V O M O O M CO M o co CO CVCO O O W co M CO .0O N N C,— Cn co coCOca. O CO o W CO M O• Width [ft] Post-BMP Dispersed Width O O O r r CO °D CO CO CO r r r i To E O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO • • Asphalt Gravel Crossing Trail Shoulders Impery (Both) Feature o °r o. v 0 v CV o . r) o O o °r° v o v v 0• O O re-rr- r r r r r rn c N 'x w C 2 a h d Q a w L O co CL i i i N CA p• ,- o i i i i i N oo M o A O) n )y 0 Impervious 0 CO d < LL a W E FO- _ co O CO O co co CO E,o CO o -a- N M 0 0 0 N CO N CO 0 0 v;A 4IO O L v N > L o j cS I— W S o o r 0 °r° 0 0 °r Gravel Trail Crossing (50% EIA) Impery Feature 0oo 0 0 0 0. r r r O m O o co 0 0 0 0 0• .. • . r • r Stations (A -Line) To*L FEr �McO') •r N�MNl' r • r r Sta Start Sta End 0) CD 0) N CD + + + CO N- N- 0 CO CO 0 0) N .+-• N i 7+65 7+86 7+86 7+99 7+99 11+00 11+00 13+56 13+56 14+20 r r o y i M co coam• O r i r CO Cr3 C v • O M n Cy 6 C as E E U O a N co N v t a ro a 2 nt tL`o ru� [L' 0 0 0 0 m 0 co rn I` CO CO w r` o N O a 0 a co O E CO 2 Z TO?' O M 00) M O co r 0 M 0 O CO Coo M A) O .l a co N N L 0 Cn LL O CP • co rs O N O O N O a E co N W N mom' o H CO CO M CO CO co V o' L o.8). F. F � co co O Sta Start Sta End 0 O N + O N O) cocn co Appendix B - Land Cover Area Calculations Comments Newberg/ Woodinville soils = Till Bridge over Black River No dispersion Basic Dispersion Basic Dispersion Full Dispersion KCRTS Hourly, Historic Q100 = 0.08 cfs 0100 = 0.09 cfs (increase < 0.1 cfs) Proposed W O tti co a N y Q Replanted Shrub/ Forest o, 0 — o N o o 0 O o CD C 0 0 N O CO o L 'O N 0 CD o o co co o ' ' Impervious 0• 0 < _co (I)° Y E 0_ w o o (0o o rn o) CD ODp ao O N. 0 c Width [ft] Post-BMP Dispersed Width a (O co co 0 L Ti -2 r a 0 (.0 0 (0 ( , Asphalt Gravel Crossing Trail Shoulders Impery (Both) Feature '0 0 0 0 o a a a a p ' ' c .y x W N O dm co Q _ 2 y .CO L O) n inM a- 0 N = 2 t W O. E w to E < N 'x Z W N m E Fy0- _ O o 0 0 0 O o 0 rn ,_,_,_ M co O Width [ft] a) >_ L O tS v F LL 0(O (0 u) s • Gravel Trail Crossing (50% EIA) Impery Feature 0 0 0 0 0 p N• Q O,t- Stations (B-Line) _ m 0 cE F (0 r, 0 0 0 ,N000 N N CO Sta Start Sta End 17+11 17+76 101+77 103+00 103+00 105+00 105+00 107+00 107+00 110+00 H Q y at N 4,4 N h• N O c O 0 G Comments Woodinville soils = Till Full Dispersion Full Dispersion Basic Dispersion Walls: No Dispersion Full Dispersion KCRTS Hourly, Historic Q100 = 0.15 cfs Q100 = 0.13 cfs (increase < 0.1 cfs) Replanted Shrub/ Forest 55232 1.268 co FL) Q 0 E 00 (0 0 0( 0 0 (O (V on 0 Proposed co 3 '2 a a L > > N H T. 0 0 o O O O ' mpervious (0 Z ,) A E 0- 08 O O co 0 o (o is N p o g. L Post-BMP Dispersed Width 0 0 CO 0 N L (0 (0 (O CO co Asphalt Gravel Crossing Trail Shoulders Impery (Both) Feature 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a NNNNN L ' ' i I rn c y W N 7 O Z m a co ¢ _ y 2 `0 CO W 0 N N• ,() o QF (1 W Q E O O O O CO) LO- V O N N L- O N O el CO C Impervious r L a) co- > L U L p F w W CONNNN ' • Gravel Trail Crossing (50% EIA) Impery Feature 0 0 0 0 0 CD a a a a I 1 L ' Stations (B-Line) To rn 12 c o (� n o , M L- L- . i Sta Start Sta End 110+00 124+00 124+00 124+33 124+33 125+50 125+50 126+75 126+75 132+50 y F Q a r- in Cr) • 10 c O C � Appendix B - Land Cover Area Calculations Comments Woodinville soils = Till Full Dispersion Basic Dispersion Full Dispersion ,Basic Dispersion Full Dispersion No Dispersion KCRTS Hourly, Historic Q100 = 0.07 cfs Q100 = 0.12 cfs (increase < 0.1 cfs) Proposed Pervious Area (st] Replanted Shrub/ Forest 111.11 16221 0.372 NN 0 co V O M O 0 o N N N N M 10 p t � (1) N N c� O co o co O O • 1 Impervious c m d Q z Q O E o 0 0 CI o N N O— or 0n � O F L 0 Post-BMP Dispersed Width O CO O co O w 'o_ H co co co CO O CD . . Asphalt Gravel Crossing Trail Shoulders Impery (Both) Feature O O O O O O N N N N N N 1 • 1 ' O) c 7. W N 7 O ao . C' y Q E in N li . T 2 2 2 d a. E N m N a W N a N E 0- _ F- co N C CO 0 10 10 c0 0) 10` CO V O CO et O N O C L a_ a) N N ? L i U P- CNICNICSICNINCV . 1 Gravel Trail Crossing (50% EIA) Impery Feature 0 0 0 0 0 0 v a v v v v . Stations (B-Line) — .0 o c" 1. 0) CO N CO P.- CO 1 1 Sta Start Sta End 0) 11) n 10 O N. 10 co N I, u, + + + + + + CO CO CO V • CO O 0) 1n I - 10 0 10 10 CO N f\ 10 + + + + + + COCO N0')') CO CV amOV V I I CO 10 0 to N O c 0 O Appendix C Offsite Analysis - Resource Review and Site Visit Photos Land Use & Zoning (Property Information) s 125Th Sf fa-- R -P S 12fT1i Pt . L,. R-8-P v~i a 127Th Pt c•. ¢• ,, fir. 111H! l�lllh r 4p gr SC 120:18 King County COMMENTS: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A 0 1179ft The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff iron a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kina County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information This document is not intended for use as a survey Product. Kino County shall not be liable for any oeneral. special. indirect. incidental. or consequential Land Use & Zoning (Property Information) _I County Boundary Contours (100ft light( Highways Streets R tq h way Artertars Local Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Tribal Lands Farmland preservation properties Parcels Parks Comprehensive Plan Land Use Unincorporated Activity Center Commu n ny Business Center Neighborhood Business Center Commercial Outside of Centers Urban Pan Development Urban R es id e n t al 3. 12 d u lac (coat' Le ge nld Urban Resident sal 4 12 d ulac Urban Residential 1 du,ac Rural C ny Urban Growth Area R u rai Town Rural Neighborhood Commercial Center Rural Area 1 du2.5-101 ac Industrial Forest ry Agricuiture Miraing Green bch7U rhan Separator King County Open Space System Other Par kzhViaerness Unincorporated KC Zoning A • 10 Ag mutt ural. one DU per 10 acres A 35 - Ag ncu Mural. one DU per 55 acres F-Forest M • Mineral RA-2.5 = Rural Area, one DU par 5 acres RA-5-Rurat Area,one DU per 5acres RA-110 - Rural Area. one DU per 10 acres (cant) In il U R U roan Reserve, one DU per 5 acres R • 1 • Residento', one DtJ per acre R-4 Resident al. 4 D U per acre R•fl Resident al. 6 DU per acre R-8 - Resident al, 8 DU per acre R-12 • Residential, 12 D U per acre R • 18 • Residential, 18 DU per acre R•24 • Residential, 24 DU per acre R.48 • Resyfeniial.48 DO per acre N8 • Neighborhood Business CB - Community Business RB • Regional Business O.Offroa I - Industrial Other 2009 Color Aerial Photos (bin) 2009 Color Aerial Photos (12in) The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness. timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential 'a01 ■_. w Hydrographic (Water Resources S 125T41 ST S i26TH PL s12iTHpl. — i V1 t G s 129TT3f ST Z- 4 • k $ 1.3147 fir, 14 GRT19 S15fiR;ST {CI 20,M King County COMMENTS: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A r sKY3 u - .0 d .+ YGI - .: ,7,yy Ly,i } W F5 G9 0 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied. as to accuracy, completeness. timeliness. or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental. or consequential AMP Hydrographic (Water Resources .f 1l Hydrogauges ACTH[ Inact n+c Buoys County Boundary Contours 1100ft lighty Highways King County Drainage Basins Streets H+p hway Arterials (cont) Legend Local Parcels Floodways 100 Year Floodplain Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Wetlands (1990 Survey) Xing Coun1yWetland Survey NaltanalWet land Inventory, Suricry Channel Migration Hazard Areas (cont) MOD [RAT [ SEVERE The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice, King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential 11 -01 S 127rM" p ;D 6S224D9; DS3 D97441 * * �Dg2i784 4D190 82 r'1;` Du wamish Rive S 153-R:C ST {CI 2`XI11 Krn9 County COMMENTS: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Stlormwater w!`7.1* s D9 113 4w97114 S 1:tiST p; 47, 4Cf;:5435 .. S 1i8Tij sT S n29TN ST trt • D9rdD52 12;TH ST rr 01 t 1179ft The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidenta, or consequential 1:Kiffi ST s St:ir�..ST SWLI6T H•S1 I. inl . �. Stormwater I County Boundary Contours (100ft light) Drainage Studies Neighborhood Drainage Projects Regional Stormwater Facilities Residential Stormwater Facilities Commercial Stormwater Facilities Surface Water Engineering Projects Highways King County Drainage Basins Streets jcon” Legend II hway Aricrtats Loral Parcels Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Drainage Complaints Landslide Hazards Landslide I lazard Landside hazard Drainage Water Quality Basic Water Clualrty T real rnenl Sensrtree Lake Treatment t o{l DralnageArea Flow Control (cunt' Basic Flow Conlrol Conservation Fkrw Control Flood Problem Flaw Control The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties. express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. Kin; County shall not belittle for any general, special indirect, incidental, or consequential Groundwater S S 125TH ST S173T14 S t,32 f5 5T o °< Green River - y s .sisr=sre S 15aR 3 ST ZCI 2006 King County COMMENTS Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Sx1 51HST 111;9ft The information included on this map has been coirlpiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness. timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential Groundwater Groundwater Sources • Grou p A WVelts Group C! welts Cd her Waltz Groundwater Quality Sampling Sites County Boundary Contours (100ft IightN Highways King County Drainage Basins Streets W )g hway Arterials Lec,aI Parcels Groundwater Management Areas Legend Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Wetlands (1990 Survey) Well -head Protection Area: 6 Month Radius Wellhead Protection Area: 1 , Y�fti Year Radius ■ Wellhead Protection Area: 5 Year Radius Wellhead Protection Areal. 10 Year Radius Areas S usce pta ble to Groundwater Contamination Low Mod Ill rn nigh Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Catogorp' 1 (contp Categoy 2 Category 3 The information included on this map has beer compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for anygeneral, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential Sensitive Areas {C 120'.Vs King County COMMENTS: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A The information included on this map has been complied by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. Kino County shall not be liable for any aenerai special. indirect incidental or consequential Sensitive Areas County Boundary Contours (100ft light) CAO Shoreline Condition 110 Medium Low Highways Streets Wig hway Arterials Local Parcels Shoreline Management Designation Conservancy Natural Rural (cont) 4. Legend RuraL°Con+mr ancy Urban U rban,`R u ral Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Channel Migration Hazard Areas MOD[RAT SEVERE SAO Wetland Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 SWDM Landslide Hazards Landslide Ilazard (contj Landslide l lazard D ralna?c SWDM Water Quality Basle Water Quality Trcal.meni Son sit we Lake Treatment Bog OrainagcArea SWDM Flow Control Bask Flow Control Conserhal ton F low Control Rood P'roblom Flow Cent rol CAO Tributary Basins Lower T rtl utary Basins Upper T ribulary Basins The information included on this map has been compiled by King Comnty staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness. timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King Courky shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential Shoreline Master Program CF) S 125TH ST S 1•261)4 pt -4•‘.1G.,. 44, '`...1 0 ' :,.,. Sith 1.• ' . ' 3 I, • '''•- -\}44, ''''. 4,....', 1_ 1°.-, 0 1)-(C 51 s *04 517/1C S 128T# ST 914347,..,. ,11)1„.E— —S LAN ST H1.3 -rrrrtt, • s t32fr40 ST Du warms h River S 1534:11) ST IC) 2008 King County Gre&; COMMENTS. Lake to Sound Trail Segment A -L.L1-1157-13:3Rri • s 41 (0) S 125.04 ST 1:35-141ST.,„ jjJ 111 11 • ) S 12C14.1 ST Skre ;1 H. S 1.4 O CC The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied. as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for arty general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential Shoreline Master Program ••• • •� County Boundary Shoreline Facilities 6 Boat Launch Camping or Picnic Area SIroet Cnds Swimming Beaches ■ Trailhead or Parking Lot Shoreline Current Land Use 0 DOT Outfalls El Ferry Terminal Marine Docks 0 NPDLS Discharge Point Outfalis Regional Stormwaicr Fa. tidy Residential Debate • Shoreline Permits h Storm -water Facility A Water Ortonled Use Trails Payed T rail On St real T rail Soft Surface Trail Surface Unknown Contours (100ft light} Parcels Parks King County Parks County City Stale Federal Park Dist nci School D ist ric1 01 her Government Highways Streets Highway (cont) Legend Asteriats Local Shoreline of Statewide Significance Shoreline Reaches Shoreline Designation - 1978 S MP l Natural Conservancy Rural R u rat"Consarrancy, Urban UrbaniRural Shoreline Designation - Current Natural Shoreline Forestry Shoreline Resource Shoreline Conservancy Shoreline Rural Shoreline Resident ;al Shoreline Nigh InlensnyShoreline Shoreline Reach Restoration t-,-. A • ■ Priority Gap Area Add it *nal Gap Area Shoreline Public Access King County Natural Lands Informal Access! Kmg County Parks {informal Access' PG RS Property Timtwriands Lake Final Quality Low Reach Quality Lowy Medium Reach Qualrty Medium Reach Quality Medium H h Reach Quality high Reach Qua!ny Marine Final Quality Low Reach Qualrty Low Medium Reach Quality Medium Reach Qualm), Medium High Reach Quality high Reach Quality River Final Quality Loth Roach Quality Low Medium Roach Quality Medium Reach Quality Medium II Reach Quality high Reach Quality Shoreline Jurisdiction - Land Use Urban zoning Ruralzoning Resource zoning Open space zoning Shoreline Jurisdiction Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Shoreline Public Access Priority (cont) The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, es to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. Kinip County shall not be liable for any general„special, indirect, incidental, or consequential 1.11 ■ -. w Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A -Line Station 1+00) Looking west I near A -Line Station 3+00) Looking west (near A -Line Station 5+50) Looking west (near A -Line Station 6+00) Looking east at railroad crossings (near A -Line Station 6+25) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A -Line Station 8+25) Looking west (near A -Line Station 11+00) Looking east at Monster Road driveway (near A -Line Station 13+50) Looking north at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 14+00) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 14+50/C-Line Station 201+75) Looking north at Monster Road (near A -Line 15+00/C-Line Station 202+20) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 16+20/C-Line Station 202+50) Looking north at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River near A -Line 16+00/ C-Line Station 202+50) n ti Looking south at pedestrian crossing Location over the Black River (near A -Line 17+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east atMonster Road (near 8'UnoStation IUJ+SO\ Looking east (near B-Line Station 105+00) Looking west (near B-Line Station 121+00) Location of proposed box culvert, looking west (near B-Line Station 126+00) Project End, looking north (B-Line Station 143+17) Appendix D KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation Appendix D - KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TDA 1 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA1pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.73 acres Impervious 0.05 acres Total Area : 0.76 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:l2salpre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.572 StdDev= 0.187 Skew= -0.062 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob 0.075 100.00 0.990 Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA1dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Till Grass Impervious 0.27 acres 0.18 acres 0.31 acres Total Area : 0.76 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:l2saldev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.066 0.058 0.047 0.045 0.038 0.027 0.019 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.024 StdDev= 0.115 Skew= 0.390 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.188 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks 0.171 0.155 0.134 0.129 0.117 0.093 0.077 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 Appendix D - KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation T DA 2 Project Location : Computing Series Regional Scale Factor Data Type Sea-Tac : L2SA2pre.tsf 1.00 : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.21 acres Impervious 0.84 acres Total Area : 1.05 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa2pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.661 StdDev= 0.096 Skew= 0.528 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob Computed Peaks 0.398 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA2dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Grass 0.18 acres Impervious 0.87 acres Total Area : 1.05 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa2dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.365 0.334 0.293 0.284 0.261 0.214 0.184 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -0.631 StdDev= 0.100 Skew= 0.505 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.435 100.00 0.990 Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks 0.399 0.363 0.317 0.308 0.282 0.229 0.196 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 Appendix D - KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TDA 3 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA3pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.40 acres Impervious 0.12 acres Total Area : 0.52 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa3pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) r - Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.431 StdDev= 0.118 Skew= 0.498 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.077 100.00 0.990 Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA3dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Till Grass Impervious 0.31 acres 0.07 acres 0.14 acres Total Area : 0.52 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa3dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.069 0.062 0.053 0.051 0.046 0.036 0.030 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.348 StdDev= 0.120 Skew= 0.466 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.094 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks 0.085 0.076 0.065 0.062 0.056 0.044 0.036 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 Appendix D - KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation T DA 4 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA4pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 1.22 acres Impervious 0.14 acres Total Area : 1.36 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa4pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.239 StdDev= 0.158 Skew= 0.370 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.148 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA4dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 1.27 acres Till Grass 0.02 acres Impervious 0.07 acres Total Area : 1.36 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa4dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.131 0.114 0.093 0.089 0.078 0.056 0.044 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.356 StdDev= 0.199 Skew= -0.023 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.127 100.00 0.990 Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks 0.112 0.098 0.078 0.075 0.065 0.044 0.031 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 Appendix D - KCRTS Runoff Modeling Documentation TDA 5 Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA5pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.60 acres Impervious 0.05 acres Total Area : 0.65 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa5pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.618 StdDev= 0.176 Skew= 0.175 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.065 100.00 0.990 Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Computed Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Peaks Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : L2SA5dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest 0.37 acres Till Grass 0.13 acres Impervious 0.15 acres Total Area : 0.65 acres Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12sa5dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.058 0.050 0.041 0.039 0.034 0.024 0.018 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.282 StdDev= 0.127 Skew= 0.544 Flow Frequency Analysis- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period Computed Peaks 0.116 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks 0.103 0.092 0.077 0.074 0.066 0.051 0.042 50.00 25.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.30 0.980 0.960 0.900 0.875 0.800 0.500 0.231 Appendix E Box Culvert Design Calculations 0 DATE: April 15, 2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T200E-01 200 Legend: L * FEMA Boundaries from 1995 FIRM. FEMA Floodplain Boundary Figure 1 Project Site Map ' • Fort Dent Park • — 40 p. ...... b.4.4i1E.0.4NL 14774f4 ree Car j7A17 " 073 1 trilMff — F • • `) < 3-<- • • . • k. t.L‘ " cv••0 • ?Yip, \ • Black River 1 .0, .c• . eti 2 IiiCaP14100i0.7, wow Ardor • -9 rerfretvdreo" OHWM 4?" 9, bmwm 2 Black River •0 a) a) 77:111/1111A1. 1..t. ‘.. • ' . - 2- • - -- ..k.,_,:-:....,_.{.",..›.,.._ .1. • . . 2 , , , . 11,.,..„.„...A , A -...-4. .,>_.---•,-...c.,_ i ----, , --i- , •--->.. '... ''\,_.' - 1 -- - ' / 1 .., ,. v- a) cn 1 Parametrix DATE: April 7, 2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T200E-02 Legend: F F F c 0 F— Fill Line c— Cut Line _ _ . FEMA Floodplain Boundary — Right of Way Line Figure 2 Floodplain Impact Area —hack Rj 'COTTONWOOD - UBLE • COTTONdvOOD -28 0 o °°•1••' t t. 1-144 -•*°•/ •�'•°°ee °•� 4. �11� ' . ,- a _. .•�.'wY_��'�.�_o'dl�.: ��sy!��°ses°tee11* °.`�!% Black River ^ _ -- ti N Parametrix DATE: April 7, 2015 FILE: BL1521084PAT3T200E-02 Legend: --F F c 0 40 c F— Fill Line c— Cut Line FEMA Floodplain Boundary — Right of Way Line Figure 3 Floodplain Impact Area Appendix G King County Surface Water Design Manual Operation and Maintenance Excerpts APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5 - CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Component Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Sump of catch basin contains no sediment. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than % cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin by more than 10%. No Trash or debris blocking or potentially blocking entrance to catch basin. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No dead animals or vegetation present within catch basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame and/or top slab Corner of frame extends more than' inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Frame is even with curb. Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than % inch. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than' inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Cracks in walls or bottom Cracks wider than % inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Catch basin is sealed and structurally sound. Cracks wider than % inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Settlement/ misalignment Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than '%-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than '%-inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. Damaged Cracks widen than '%-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than 'h-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5 - CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Component Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Metal Grates (Catch Basins) Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than inch. Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Cover/lid protects opening to structure. Locking mechanism Not Working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to Remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6 - CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES (ALSO APPLICABLE TO CULVERTS) Maintenance Component Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment & debris accumulation Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Water flows freely through pipes. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of water through pipes. Water flows freely through pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective coating or corrosion Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Sediment accumulation Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to County personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Water flows freely through ditches. Erosion damage to slopes Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. Rock lining out of place or missing (If Applicable) One layer or less of rock exists above native soil area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native soil. Replace rocks to design standards. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 8 - ENERGY DISSIPATERS (AS APPLICABLE TO GRAVEL SHOULDERS OF TRAIL) Maintenance Component Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Site Trash and debris Trash and/or debris accumulation. Dissipater clear of trash and/or debris. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Rock Pad Missing or moved Rock Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger or any exposure of native soil. Rock pad prevents erosion. Dispersion Trench Pipe plugged with sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it matches design. Not discharging water properly Visual evidence of water discharging at concentrated points along trench (normal condition is a "sheet flow" of water along trench). Water discharges from feature by sheet flow. Perforations plugged. Over 1/4 of perforations in pipe are plugged with debris or sediment. Perforations freely discharge flow. Water flows out top of "distributor" catch basin. Water flows out of distributor catch basin during any storm less than the design storm. No flow discharges from distributor catch basin. Receiving area over- saturated Water in receiving area is causing or has potential of causing landslide problems. No danger of landslides. Gabions Damaged mesh Mesh of gabion broken, twisted or deformed so structure is weakened or rock may fall out. Mesh is intact, no rock missing. Corrosion Gabion mesh shows corrosion through more than of its gage. All gabion mesh capable of containing rock and retaining designed form. Collapsed or deformed baskets Gabion basket shape deformed due to any cause. All gabion baskets intact, structure stands as designed. Missing rock Any rock missing that could cause gabion to loose structural integrity. No rock missing. Manhole/Chamber Worn or damaged post, baffles or side of chamber Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to or original size or any concentrated worn spot exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. Structure is in no danger of failing. Damage to wall, frame, bottom, and/or top slab Cracks wider than %-inch or any evidence of soil entering the structure through cracks, or maintenance inspection personnel determines that the structure is not structurally sound. Manhole/chamber is sealed and structurally sound. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No soil or water enters and no water discharges at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 - GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) (OBEY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN WETLANDS AND BUFFERS) Maintenance Component Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Trash and debris cleared from site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to County personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Crass/groundcover Grass or grc Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified,arborist must be removed as soon as possible. No hazard trees in facility. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. No blown down vegetation or knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; dead or diseased trees removed. City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director YGI(a-.av��f October 30, 2018 David Shaw Capital Projects Manager King County Parks 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Lake to Sound Trail — Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (Tukwila File Numbers L16-0016 and L16-0017 and DOE File #2016-NW-3375) Dear Mr. Shaw, Tukwila has reviewed your October 29, 2018 letter outlining the government approvals and permits that are still pending for the above project. The effective date or DOE filing date of August 5, 2016 began a two-year window for beginning construction of the project. According to your letter and subsequent email, King County began the process of obtaining a required Interagency Agreement from Tukwila on December 5, 2016, four months from the effective date of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Our understanding is that you are also required to have IAAs from King County and the City of Renton. Per the Time Requirements for Permits section of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-27-090 (4),) the City of Tukwila will consider the "permit clock" as being stopped and there will be 20 months left on the clock upon the effective date of the last IAA to be approved. We also assume that all other permitting will be completed by the time the last IAA is approved and becomes effective. As a reminder, the project must also be completed within 5 years of the effective date minus the time on the "stopped clock." 0 Sincerely, ,Se'vzi Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Copy: Rick Still, Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department BNSF UP King County Assessor, Accounting Division WA DOE, NW Regional Office WA State Attorney General Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Indian Tribe Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition City of Renton John Neller King County Parks and Recreation Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center, KSC-NR-0700 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-296-8687 Fax 206-296-8686 TTY Relay: 711 TO: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner Tukwila Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA RE: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Status DATE: October 29, 2018 Dear Ms. Bradshaw, The City of Tukwila issued a Notice of Decision for Shoreline Substantial Development permit to King County for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A on July 27, 2016. The Department of Ecology issued a filing letter approving the permit on August 6, 2016 with an effective date of August 22, 2016. While King County has now completed the design for the project and is ready to advertise for bidding, the project was delayed over the past two years by other government permits required to move the project forward. The City has informed me that the 2-year timeframe of the permit expired earlier this year, which would require the project to re -apply for the permit before bidding and construction. This letter intends to demonstrate that the Shoreline permit has not expired but was postponed while King County developed the other permit. The policy basis for this is found in the RCW 90.58.143 and WAC173-27-090. Section 2 of both the RCW and WAC establish that construction of the permitted project must begin within two years of the effective date of the permit. Section (4) of the same RCW and WAC recognizes that projects may need to obtain other governmental permits in order to begin construction. They state that the time associated with obtaining other government permits is not counted toward the two-year timeframe of the Shoreline permit. In essence the two- year clock is stopped while the permit applicant works to acquire other government permits. To document the legal roles and responsibilities for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, King County is entering into Interagency Agreements (IAA), with the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. These agreements are required by the Cities and King County to be in place before construction permits from the cities can be obtained which will allow construction activities on the trail to begin. Negotiations on the IAA have taken much longer than expected and have been the primary cause of delay in the project. Conversations for the IAAs began with Temporary Construction Easements in October of 2016. While IAA negotiations typically take up to 12 months, the process for this project has been significantly extended due to the complexities of the agreement and the specific needs of each jurisdiction. The IAAs are being reviewed by the King County Council, as of October, 2018 with final action expected near the end of the month. Review and action by the Cities of Tukwila and Renton are anticipated soon after. King County has remained in close communication with the City of Tukwila throughout the IAA negotiation process keeping staff aware of major impacts to the project such as schedule delays. Via this letter, King County requests that the City of Tukwila recognizes a 12 month delay in the trail project due to the extended negotiations of the IAA. This delay has created a situation where City construction permits have been postponed and construction activities have not begun. These delays meet the terms lined out in the RCW and WAC sections referenced above. If the City agrees with this assessment and recognizes the 12 month delay in the project, the expiration date of the Shoreline permit would be changed from August 22, 2018 to August 22, 2019. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, David Shaw Capital Project Manager King County Parks 201 S Jackson Street, Ste. 700 Seattle, WA. 98104 CC: Frank Overton, Capital Project Managing Supervisor, King County Parks Moira Bradshaw From: Shaw, David <David.Shaw@kingcounty.gov> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 2:42 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Cc: Robert Eaton; Overton, Frank Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail A - City Shoreline Permit (File No L16-0016) Hi Moira, Per my letter, the establishment of the temporary construction easement (TCE) with Tukwila signifies the official beginning of the IAA negotiations. The date on the TCE is 12/5/2016. Let's use that as our start date. We had anticipated applying for Tukwila's Public Works permit for the grading associated with the project. We are filling out the permit forms now and will be submitting them soon. Within Tukwila limits, the project is on easement on private land (Union Pacific Railroad) and in Fort Dent Park. The IAA includes easements for Tukwila property. The construction timeframe is 120 days so we anticipate that construction will be completed by the end of 2019 with plant establishment finishing up a year later. Thanks for all your help with this. Let me know if there is other information you need. David Shaw Capital Project Manager 0: 206-263-2164 1 M: 206-503-5930 From: Moira Bradshaw <Moira.Bradshaw@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 2:33 PM To: Shaw, David <David.Shaw@kingcounty.gov> Cc: Robert Eaton <Robert.Eaton@TukwilaWA.gov>; Overton, Frank <Frank.Overton@kingcounty.gov> Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail A - City Shoreline Permit (File No L16-0016) David — I am preparing a letter to respond to the request. We are able to "stop the permit clock" if you can provide a date rather than just a month for when you began the IAA negotiations. It also sounds like all the construction permits are not in hand or applied for. We are not inclined to keep the permit clock stopped on additional permits unless there is some reason you were not able to apply for them. Please advise on that timeframe. There is a 5 year clock that runs from the effective date for completing construction. What is the time frame for construction and completion? Thanks, Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Tukwila Department of Community Development 206 - 431— 3651 The City of Opportunity, the community of choice From: Shaw, David <David.Shaw@kingcounty.gov> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:56 AM To: Moira Bradshaw <Moira.Bradshaw@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: Robert Eaton <Robert.Eaton@TukwilaWA.gov>; Overton, Frank <Frank.Overton@kingcounty.gov> Subject: Lake to Sound Trail A - City Shoreline Permit (File No L16-0016) Hi Moira, I would like to submit the attached letter regarding the shoreline permit for the Lake to Sound Trail A. Per our pervious discussion, permitted construction activities for the project have been delayed due to the negotiations of an interagency agreement between the City and King County. The agreement is currently under review by King County Council and Tukwila City Council with final action anticipated in early November. King County is requesting that Tukwila recognize the delay in construction and consider the shoreline permit as active. The attached Shoreline Permit Status Letter provides details on this item and makes the request to the City. Also attached are the Notice of Decision from Tukwila and the Filing Letter from the Dept. of Ecology. The status letter references the following sections of the RCW and WAC: • RCW 90.58.143 • WAC 173-27-090 Please let me know if you need any additional information from King County on this and what the next steps are in the process. This is very time sensitive for King County. We plan to bid the project in mid -November, 2018 in order to stay in compliance with obligations associated with the Federal funding on the project. Your quick review and response to this issue is greatly appreciated. I will make myself available for meetings and phone calls on this as needed. Thanks, David Shaw Capital Project Manager King County Parks - Your Big Backyard 0: 206-263-2164 I M: 206-503-5930 1 E: David.Shaw@kingcounty.gov King Street Center, 201 S Jackson St. STE 700, Seattle, WA 98104-3855 www.kingcounty.gov/parks I Blog Facebook Instagram Twitter 200 parks * 175 miles of trails * 28,000 acres of open space CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Ave SE • Bellevue, WA 98008-5452. 425-649-7000 • 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 August 5, 2016 Jason Rich King County Department of Natural Resources 201 S. Jackson Street, Room 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: City of Tukwila Local Permit L16-0016; L16-0017 King County DNR — Applicant Conditioned Shoreline Variance Permit #2016-NW-3375 Approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) #2416-NW-3375 Dear Mr. Rich: On August 1, 2016, we received the City of Tukwila decision on your Shoreline Variance and Substantial Development Permits to construct a segment of the Lake to Sound Trail adjacent to the Black River. The Tukwila segment connects a portion in the City of Renton with the Green River Trail in Tukwila. A shoreline variance is requested to allow the trail to be 12 feet wide instead of the standard 14 feet wide as specified in the Tukwila SMP public access section. By law, Ecology must review SDPs and Variances for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). • Ecology's SDP approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC). • Ecology's Variance approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-170 WAC). • The City of Tukwila Local Shoreline Master Program. Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received and filed by Ecology. After reviewing Variance Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision: Ecology approves your Variance Permit, provided your project complies with the conditions required by the City of Tukwila and the following Ecology conditions: King County Department of Natural Resources August 5, 2016 Page 2 1. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of access shall begin from the date of receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of five years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. 2. Recommend that city staff work with Fort Dent Park on creating public access to the new trail in the northeast comer of the park. The Tukwila trail segment will border this area. Please note, however, that other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from August 5, 2016, the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB). You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The SHB will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the SHB before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. You may reach them at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eluho.wa.govBoard/SHB. If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the SHB website above or on the website of the Washington State Legislature at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. If you have any questions about this Letter, please contact David Pater, Shoreline Specialist, at (425) 649-4253. Sincerely, Joe urcar, Interim Section Manager Shorelands. and Environmental Assistance Program By certified mail: 7005 1820 0000 6707 8896 Cc: Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila Community Development Lake to Sound Trail: L16-0016 d y.d 0 Z 15 (Confirm #) trees are being removed. Complies because project is a public trail. Qy d y G. I- O CD O O a-0cc, N yr CD y . Q X O- O a 0 X 1. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on the site, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part of design review, the DCD Director or the BAR may require alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river. Trees located on properties not undergoing development or re- development may not be removed except those that interfere with access and passage on public trails or that present an imminent hazard to existing structures or the public. If the hazard is not readily apparent, the City may require an evaluation by an International Society of Arborists (ISA)- certified arborist. 2. Removal of any significant tree or native vegetation in the Shoreline Jurisdiction requires a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and is generally only allowed on sites undergoing development or re -development. Only trees that interfere with access and passage on public trails or trees that present an imminent hazard to existing structures or the public may be removed from sites without an issued building permit or Federal approval. Factors that will be considered in approving tree removal include, but are not limited to: tree condition and in CD 0 r u r. 4) y 0. O` 0 0 0 l I) C v Separate permit not required and decision is folded into Shoreline substantial development permit Additional measures may be required; evaluating the WDOT standard Evaluating planting location x X x X X X X health, age, risks to structures, and potential for root or canopy interference with utilities. 3. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community Development (DCD) containing the following information: a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all significant trees and all existing native vegetation b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees required. c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to be retained for sites undergoing development or re -development. d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any sensitive areas with their buffers. e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation. f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD. g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution. 4. Where permitted, significant trees that are removed from the shoreline shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements, up to a density of 100 trees per acre (including existing trees). The Director or Planning Commission may L.DO C 0 u What type of assurances would City Y want? Will condition Provide evaluation X require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to mitigate any potential impact from the loss of this vegetation as a result of new development. (See Tree Replacement Requirement Table) 5. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long- term health of trees planted for replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. 6. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off -site tree replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off -site tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off -site location is available, the applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund. The fee shall be based on the value of the replacement trees and their delivery, labor for site preparation and plant installation, soil amendments, mulch, and staking supplies. 7. When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed tree(s) to a location designated by the City. If no restoration project or storage location is available at the time, the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the Transition Zone. n u D . .1 u 7 L N 0 0 '0 C Co. E 0 u Need detail showing Clarify extent of x x 8. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the public. 9. Topping of trees is prohibited unless absolutely necessary to protect overhead utility lines. Topping of trees will be regulated as removal and tree replacement will be required. 10. For new development or re -development where trees are proposed for retention, tree protection zones shall be indicated on site plans and shall be established in the field prior to commencement of any construction or site clearing activity. A minimum 4 feet high construction barrier shall be installed around significant trees and stands of native trees or vegetation to be retained. Minimum distances from the trunk for the construction barriers shall be based on the approximate age of the tree (height and canopy) as follows: a. Young trees (have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 feet per inch of trunk diameter. b. Mature trees (have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk diameter. c. Over mature trees (have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per inch of trunk diameter C. Landscaping. This section presents landscaping standards divided into a general section and separate sections for the River Buffer and for the remaining part of the Shoreline Jurisdiction for each environment designation 1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation \_• i a i E u c . 'a Clarify Project ends at the existing Green River Trail where a levee is water ward of trail. Additional permit not required, proposed vegetation changes are included in this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Verify that no riprap is proposed Ask JASON x x x must be removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank. a. New development or full redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be carried out. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed per the approved tree permit, if required. b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted, including the river bank. c. On properties located behind publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the buffer. d. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the slope stability of the bank will be maintained and a plan must be submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and tree protection features will be utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment. e. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required. f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such phasing is provided for by a plan 1A N N 0 Z a Z u >' a) ,,, a o a, .- E L. O O p 1 -0 C v e >. N 0 0. o c E L 'G u Condition - Make note on plan sheet No plans to plant in the non -buffer area Need detail and size specification for stakes x x x approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion. g. A combination of native trees, shrubs and groundcovers (including grasses, sedges, rushes and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004 Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification. h. Non-native trees may be used as street trees in cases where conditions are not appropriate for native trees (for example where there are space or height limitations or conflicts with utilities). i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and Landscape Association - ANLA). j. Plant sizes in the non -buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following minimum size standards: Deciduous trees: 2-inch caliper. Conifers: 6-8 foot height. Shrubs: 24-inch height. Ground cover/grasses: 4-inch or 1 gallon container. k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2-inch in diameter. J • a L 'O • u Ask Andrea to verify View corridors are not being planned. Ask Jason X X X 1. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the vegetation's long-term health and survival. m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access to the water's edge. n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species. Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according to the approved maintenance plan. o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.B.4. and must be replanted in a timely manner, except where a long term removal and re -vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being implemented. p. The following standards apply to utilities and loading docks located in the shoreline jurisdiction. Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc. shall be suitably screened with native vegetation; Utility easements shall be landscaped with native groundcover, grasses or other low -growing plants as appropriate to the shoreline environment and site conditions; Allowed loading docks and service areas located waterward of the development shall have landscaping that provides extensive visual separation from the river. 2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments h al 0 z a z u Ol N 0. 'o CD ,.. E a � C u Jason - Is planting confined to bank of river? x x x x a. A planting plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist shall be submitted to the City for approval that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a landscape architect or biologist may be waived by the Director for single family property owners (when planting is being required as mitigation for construction of overwater structures or shoreline stabilization), if the property owner accepts technical assistance from City staff. b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless site conditions would make planting unsafe. c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature. Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations. d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080.C.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density calculations. f. In the event that a development project allows for setback and benching of the shoreline along an existing levee or revetment, the newly created mid -slope bench area shall be planted and maintained with a variety of native vegetation appropriate for site conditions. (See River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table) 3. Landscaping Requirements for the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments — Outside of the River Buffer n C E .O O x x >< x x x The requirements for the underlying zoning as established in TMC Chapter 18.52 shall apply except as indicated below. a. Parking Lot Landscape Perimeters: One native tree for each 20 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, one shrub for each 4 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, and native groundcovers to cover 90% of the landscape area within 3 years, planted at a minimum spacing of 12 inches on -center. b. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Every 300 square feet of paved surface requires 10 square feet of interior landscaping within landscape islands separated by no more than 150 feet between islands. c. Landscaping shall be provided at yards not adjacent to the river, with the same vvidth as required in the underlying zoning district. This standard may be reduced as follows: (1) Where development provides a public access corridor between off -site public area(s) and public shoreline areas, side yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent to no less than 3 feet; or (2) Where development provides additional public access area(s) (as allowed by the High Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environment Development Standards) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total building area, front yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent. D. Vegetation Management 1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline ecological function. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. Topping of trees is Q z u y ,, 0. B. d ++ E 1 'O C U Condition Confirm with applicant that it is not being used Verify with applicant on use of turf x x x x x x x x prohibited except where absolutely necessary to avoid interference with existing utilities. 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. 3. Use of pesticides a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline jurisdiction except where: (1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species; (2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest management and monitoring plan; (3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations; (4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing bythe City and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. b. Self-contained rodent bait boxes designed to prevent access by other animals are allowed. c. Sports fields, parks, golf courses and other outdoor recreational uses that involve maintenance of extensive areas of turf shall provide and implement an integrated turf management a) 0 a) H O. o a) 4., E o .-aa c u CL p C E 1 'a 0 or integrated Lake to Sound Trail: L16-0016 Notes LDR and HI _w 70 f6 X ++ G. o a Z < X X X X X X X X X X ++ 0 u C - C- o C E 0. 'B u 4.1 u >" C p C E a -o u X X 18.44.070 Development Standards These development standards apply to all substantial development except vegetation removal within the Shoreline B. Residential Environment. a. Development standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply. b. Development must allow for a river bank inclination of 2.5:1 with a 20' setback from top of riverbank. c. Utilities must be screened with native vegetation d. Shoreline stabilization work must comply with TMC 18.44.070(F) e. Short plats of 5-9 lots or formal subdivisions must provide public access f. Parking associated with SF residential developments are subject to TMC 18.44.070(1) g. Structures normally accessory to residential development (e.g. fences) must not block views of the river or extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain link fencing must be vinyl coated. h. Recreational structures permitted in the buffer must provide buffer mitigation. i. Surface transportation facilities (e.g. streets) shall not be closer than 50' from the OHWM, unless bridging the river. j. Utility structures shall not be taller than 30'. Utility structures above 35' require a Shoreline CUP. B.2. Design review is required for non-residential development in the Residential Environment. C. All Other Environments Standards 1.a. Development standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply 1.b. All new development by public agencies, or new multi -family, commercial, or industrial development shall provide public access y aJ +•1 0 z as 70 to u O. O O. z 4 See that matrix No lighting proposed and no parking areas or bldgs.. No new surface water systems Non -motorized trails are considered non -pollution generating impervious surfaces and water quality treatment is not required. X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1.c. Development of properties in the shoreline other than areas with a levee, must comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping section of Shoreline Code (TMC 18.44.080) 1.d. Shoreline stabilization work must comply with TMC 18.44.070(F) 1.e. Over -water structures shall be allowed only for water -dependent uses with limited size and must comply with TMC 18.44.070(K) Setbacks 2.a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is equal to the buffer width established for the applicable shoreline environment 2.b. Outdoor features that provide access to the shoreline (e.g. fishing piers) are not required to meet setbacks from the OHWM. Height Restrictions 3.a. 15' in the River Buffer 3.b. 45' between the landward edge of the River Buffer and the OHWM. 3.c. Any development greater than 35' the applicant must demonstrate the development will not block views. Lighting 4.a. The minimum light level in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be one -foot candle. 4.b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light glare/spillover 4.c. The general grounds need not be lighted _ 4.d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan. D. Surface Water and Water Quality 1. New surface water systems may not discharge directly into the river w/o pre-treatment. 2. Pre-treatment consist of methods approved by the City. M r-1 4- 0 N a1 CIO co d ar O z ar cc 171 u_ O O. Z The project is exempt because it will result in less than .1 cubic feet per second in the 100 year peak flow rate. Sheet flow from the paved trail to the adjacent gravel should then to existing drainage pathways. No new outfalls Locating pet poop dispenser; Consider trash collection condition Locating pet poop dispenser. What about trash cans?? Surface water facilities are not required X X X X XX X X X X X X x x 3. Shoreline development, uses and activities shall not cause any increase in surface runoff and shall have adequate provisions for detention/infiltration. 4. Stormwater outfalls must cause no net loss of ecological functions. 5. Shoreline development and activities shall have adequate provisions for sanitary sewer. 6. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of water or to be discharged onto shorelands. 7. The use of low impact development techniques is required, unless such techniques conflict with other provisions of the SMP or are shown to not be feasible due to site conditions. E. Flood Hazard Reduction 1. New flood hazard reduction structures shall only be allowed when the following are demonstrated: 1.a. They are necessary to protect existing development; _ J 1.b. non-structural measures are not feasible and; 1.c. Impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated to ensure no net loss. 2. Flood hazard structures must incorporate appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation actions consistent with TMC 18.44.080 3. Levees and other flood control structures must be designed to meet the minimum levee profile except as provided in subsection 10 below. 4. Publicly -funded structural flood hazard work shall improve or provide/dedicate public access unless unavoidable health/safety, security, or ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated would result. 5. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures shall be allowed where it can be demonstrate that: 5.a. Existing structure does not provide an appropriate level of protection or; a 40 Future shoreline stabilization is not anticipated for the proposed trail X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5.b. Existing structure does not meet minimum levee profile or stability design standards; and 5.c. Repair of existing structure will not cause or increase significant adverse ecological impacts to the shoreline. 6. Rehabilitated or replaced flood hazard reduction structures shall not extend the toe of slope any further waterward of the OHWM than the existing structure. 7. New structural flood hazard reduction measures/structures shall be placed landward of the floodway. 8. New, redeveloped, or replaced structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands, and designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 9. No development shall be located within a floodplain without appropriate permit from the city. No development shall be located within a floodway except as otherwise permitted. 10. Flood hazard reduction structures may deviate from the minimum levee profile only in specific instances. F. Shoreline Stabilization 1. Shoreline protection shall only be permitted when necessary for the protection of existing legally established structures and public improvements. 2. New and re -development shall be designed/configured to avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization. Removal of failing shoreline stabilization shall be incorporated into design proposals where feasible. 3. Replacement of lawfully established, existing bulkheads or revetments are subject to the following priority system: 3.a. Replacement landward of the existing bulkhead is first priority. 3.b. Replacement in place as second option. 4. When evaluating a stabilization proposal against the above priority system, the following criteria shall be considered: 4.a. Existing topography; 4.b. Existing development; 4.c. Location of abutting bulkheads; i a O 0 z X X X X X X X X X X X X 4.d. Impact to shoreline ecological functions; and 4.e. Impact to river hydraulics, potential changes in geomorphology, and to other areas of the shoreline. 5. Applicant must demonstrate that bioengineered shoreline protection measures are not appropriate instead of hard shoreline stabilization; must also demonstrate that proposed hard stabilization will not adversely affect other infrastructure or adjacent shorelines. 6. No net loss of shoreline ecological functions, including fish habitat. Conform to requirements of WS DFW criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection and other state and federal regulatory requirements. 7. Shoreline armoring shall be designed to the minimum size, height, bulk, and extent necessary. 8. To qualify for the RCW 90.58.030(30)(e)(iii)(ii) Shoreline Substantial i Development Permit exemption, must demonstrate the following: 8.a. Erosion from currents or waves is immediately threatening a legally established residential dwelling unit or appurtenant structure(s); and 8.b. Proposed bulkhead is more consistent with the City's SMP than non-structural alternatives in protecting the site and adjacent shorelines and that non-structural alternatives are not feasible or will not provide adequate protection; and 8.c. Proposed bulkhead is located landward of the OHWM or it connects to adjacent, legally established bulkheads; and 8.d. The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead is no more than one foot above the elevation of extreme high water on tidal waters. 9. Bulkheads or revetments shall be constructed of suitable materials. Design and construction methods shall consider aesthetics and habitat protection. 10. Builder shall be financially responsible for analysis regarding the extent of probable adverse effects on fish, wildlife, and the property of others and shall propose and implement solutions approved by the City to minimize such effects. a7 0 Z ai u_ 44) 0 Q Z < 1. The location is Igsgifts a former tribal site. An unanticipated discovery plan will be required to be in place Condition Condition Condition X X X X X X X 11. Provision of safe access to the water shall be incorporated into the design of shoreline stabilization at public access sites where feasible. 12. Placement of bank protection material shall occur from the top of the bank and shall be supervised to ensure the material is not dumped directly onto the bank face. 13. Bank protection material shall be clean and of a sufficient size to prevent being washed away. 14. When riprap is washed out and presents a hazard to the safety of recreational users of the river, it shall be removed by the owner of such material. 15. Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted subject to the provisions of the SMP and shall conform to the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55) and U.S. Army Corps regulations. G. Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resources 1. All land use permits for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be coordinated with affected tribes. 2. If the City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural scientific or historical value, a substantial development that would pose a threat to the resources of the site shall not be approved. 3. Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection/evaluation and must coordinate with affected Indian tribes. City may require development be postponed. Areas of known or suspected middens shall not be disturbed. 4. Developers/property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City and other appropriate agencies/tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. 5. If unforeseen factors require rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or data, the project may be exempted from any shoreline permit requirements. \ cn CU 0 Z a) ea 4-# 0. O Q. Z +• CU O. • u Condition Condition Discussing temporal Toss of large woody debris City of Renton issued a mitigated nNS Awaiting info on LWD X X 6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provisions of this chapter. 7. On sites where historical or archaeological resources have been identified and preserved in situ, public access shall be designed and managed to provide maximum protection to the resources and surrounding environment. 8. Interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided as appropriate. H. Environmental Impact Mitigation 1. All shoreline development uses shall occur or be designed to mitigate for impacts in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 2. The if SEPA is applicable for the project, analysis of the proposed shoreline use or development shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (TMC Chapter 21.04 and WAC 197-11) 3. Mitigation sequencing shall be applied in the following order of priority (high to low): a. Avoid impact(s) altogether b. Minimize impact(s) c. Rectify impact(s) d. Reduce or eliminate impact(s) over time e. Compensate for impact(s) f. Monitor the impact(s) and compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures 4. Lower priority mitigation measures shall only be applied when higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable by the city. 5. Preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. If not feasible, off -site mitigation within the Shoreline Jurisdiction may be allowed. Mitigation projects in the Transition Zone must take place within the Transition Zone; otherwise, funds equivalent M 4- 0 n a CO a 0) 71 00 V ♦+ •C. 0 0. Z < Existing Fort Dent parking Condition: Verify no net Toss; condition regarding impact to Green River Trail; and source of fill material x x x x x to the value of the required mitigation must be contributed to an existing or future restoration project identified in the CIP. I. Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements (in addition to TMC 18.56) 1. Any parking, loading, or storage facilities located between the river and any building must reduce visual and/or environmental impacts using the following screening techniques: a. A solid evergreen screen of trees and shrubs a minimum of six feet high; or b. Decorative fence a maximum of six feet high with landscaping. Chain link fence, where allowed, shall be vinyl coated and landscaped with native trailing vine as appropriate; or c. Earth berms a minimum of four feet high, planted with native plants. 2. Where a parking area is located in the shoreline jurisdiction and adjacent to a public access feature, the parking area shall be screened by a vegetative screen or built structure that runs the entire length of the parking area adjacent to the amenity. 3. Where public access to or along the shoreline exists or is proposed, parking areas shall provide pedestrian access from the parking area to the shoreline. 4. Parking facilities, loading areas and paved areas shall incorporate low impact development techniques wherever feasible, adequate storm water retention areas, oil/water separators and biofiltration swales, or other treatment techniques and shall comply with the standards and practices formally adopted by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. J. Land Altering Activities Clearing, Grading, and Landfill 1.a. Land altering shall only be permitted where it meets the following criteria: (1) The work is the minimum necessary; (2) Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; rn 4- 0 00 v 00 c0 CI_ CD 0 Z co u_ O 0_ Z cu � .0. O a u 4 x x x x x (3) Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; (4) Public access and river navigation are not diminished; (5) The project complies with all federal and state requirements; (6) The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of TMC 18.44.080; (7) The project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, or else mitigate unavoidable impacts to meet the "no net loss" standard; and (8) Documentation is provided to demonstrate that fill comes from a clean source. Dredging 2.a. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins must be restricted to maintain previously dredged and/or existing authorized location depth, and width. 2.b. Dredging activities will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, or else mitigate unavoidable impacts to meet the "no net loss" standard. K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks, and Other Over -water Structures General Requirements 1.a. Prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, applicant shall present approvals from appropriate State or Federal agencies. 1.b. Structures must be designed by a qualified engineer and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. Must be stable against force of flowing water, wave action, and wake of passing vehicles. 1.c. In -water structures shall be designed and located to minimize shading of native aquatic vegetation and fish passage areas. Removal of shoreline, riparian and aquatic vegetation shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary. All areas disturbed by construction shall be replanted with native vegetation. v) aw +•1 0 z X X X X x X X X X X 1.d. New or replacement in -water structures shall be designed and located such that natural hydraulic and geologic processes, such as erosion, wave action or floods will not necessitate the following: 1,d.(1) reinforcement of the shoreline or stream bank with new bulkheads or similar artificial structures to protect the in -water structure; or 1.d.(2) dredging. 1.e. No structures are allowed on top of over -water structure except for properties located north of the Turning Basin. 1.f. Pilings and other associated structures in direct contact with water shall not be treated with preservatives unless the applicant can demonstrate that no feasible alternative to protect the materials exists and that non -wood alternatives are not economically feasible. In that case, additional requirements apply. 1.g. All over -water structures shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or unsafe over -water structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. Accumulated debris shall be regularly removed and disposed of properly so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the structure. Replacement of in -water structures shall include proper removal of abandoned or other man- made structures and debris. 1.h. Boat owners who store motorized boats on -site are encouraged to use best management practices to avoid fuel and other fluid spills. Marinas, Boat Yards, and Dry Docks 2.a. All uses under this category shall be designed to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, or else mitigate unavoidable impacts to meet the "no net loss" standard. 2.b. Commercial/industrial marinas and dry docks shall be located no further upriver than Turning Basin #3. 2.c. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, water quality, native shoreline vegetation, navigation, public access, existing in -water recreational activities and adjacent water uses. Page 10 of 13 r Vf 0 Z 0) .0 u_ - 0. 0 a Z X X X x x X X X X X X X 2.d. Marinas shall submit a fuel spill prevention and contingency plan to the City for approval. Haul -out and boat maintenance facilities must meet the City's stormwater management requirements and not allow the release of chemicals, petroleum or suspended solids to the river. 2.e. Marinas, boat yards and dry docks must be located a minimum of 100 feet from fish and wildlife habitat areas. 2.f. New marinas, launch ramps and accessory uses must be located where water depths are adequate to avoid the need for dredging. Boat Launches and Boat Lifts 3.a. Boat launch ramps and vehicle access to the ramps shall be designed not to cause erosion; the use of pervious paving materials, such as grasscrete, are encouraged. 3.b. Boat launch ramps shall be designed to minimize areas of landfill or the need for shoreline protective structures. 3.c. Access to the boat ramp and parking for the ramp shall be located a sufficient distance from any frontage road to provide safe maneuvering of boats and trailers. 3.d. Launching rails shall be adequately anchored to the ground. 3.e. Launch ramps and boat lifts shall extend waterward past the OHWM only as far as necessary to achieve their purpose. 3.f. Boat lifts and canopies must meet U.S. Army Corps standards. Over -water Structures 4.a. The size of new over -water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use and to provide stability in the case of floating docks. Structures must be compatible with any existing channel control or flood management structures. 4.b. Over -water structures shall not extend waterward of the OHWM any more than necessary to permit launching of watercraft, while also ensuring that watercraft do not rest on tidal substrate at any time. 4.c. Adverse impacts of over -water structures on water quality, river flows, fish habitat, shoreline vegetation, and public access shall be minimized and mitigated. m 4- 0 a) OD co a au 0 z u Ts o a z < 0 c v E d 1 u x x x x x x x x x x x x X x I X 4.d. Any proposals for in -water or over -water structures shall provide a pre -construction habitat evaluation, including an evaluation of salmonid and bull trout habitat and shoreline ecological functions, and demonstrate how the project achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 4.e. Over -water structures shall obtain all necessary state and federal permits prior to construction or repair. 4.f. All over -water structures must be designed by a qualified engineer.] 4.g. Over -water structures shall not obstruct normal public use of the river for navigation or recreational purposes. 4.h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least 30% of the surface area of the overwater structure on residential areas and at least 50% of the overwater structure on all other properties. The use of skirting is not permitted. 4.i. If floats are used, the flotation shall be fully enclosed and contained in an appropriate protective shell. 4.j. Float, anchors, and lines may not rest on the tidal substrate at any time. 4.k. Pilings shall conform to U.S. Army Corps standards and use the minimum number necessary. 4.1. No over -water structure shall be located closer than five feet from the side property line extended unless a mutual agreement for common use is recorded in an easement. Live-Aboards New over -water residences are prohibited. Live-aboards may be allowed provided that they: 15.a. single-family use only 5.b. are located in a marina that provides shower and toilet facilities on land; no sewage discharges to the water 1 5.c. do not exceed 10% of the total slips in the marina 5.d. are owner -occupied 5.e. have on -shore support services L. Signs in Shoreline Jurisdiction Page 12 of 13 CD co .173 u_ O O. Z Q This might be appropriate X X X X X x 1. Signs in shoreline buffer limited to the following: 1.a. interpretive signs 1 1.b. for water -related uses 1.c. installed by govt. agency for public safety along any public trail or park 1.d. in ROW or bridge 1.e. on utilities and wireless communication facilities denoting danger or other safety info. (e.g. emergency contacts) 2. Billboards and other off -premises signs are strictly forbidden in the shoreline buffer. Lake to Sound Trail L16-0016 Notes Not applicable in Tukwila — closest street is Monster Road in City of Renton. Complies in Renton. Trail will be clearly visible and accessible from Green River Trail The private site this path crosses are the UPRR and BNSFRR. The tracks for both are elevated over the proposed trail x: X V C - N Qa d a c°) CD cn fl- X a - °a 0 X X 18.44.100 Public Access to the Shoreline B. General Standards. 1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide: a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle connections between proposed development and the river's edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or other approved trail system; b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge; c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be accomplished through the use of special paving materials such as precast pavers, bomonite, changes in color or distinct and detailed scoring patterns and textures. d. Site elements that are organized to clearly distinguish between public and private access and circulation systems. 2. Required public access shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy in accordance with development permit conditions except where the decision maker determines an appropriate mechanism for delayed public access implementation is necessary for practical reasons. Where appropriate, a bond or cash assignment may be approved, on review and approval by the Director of Community Development, A L H 0. L 'C C ) pi/nit., I, Z r �S c) ezwt n-s4 Will RR allow? G`Y? .it04/ What are BNSF and UP requiring regarding access and signage? Informational signage as to destination of trail would be helpful. Shared between different jurisdiction and across multiple properties. x x x to extend this requirement for 90 days from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Public access easements and related permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title or the face of the plat, short plat or approved site plan as a condition tied to the use of the land. Recording with the County shall occur prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or final plat approval. Upon re -development of such a site, the easement may be relocated to facilitate the continued public access to the shoreline. 4. Approved signs indicating the public's right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public access may be approved as a condition of permit approval. 5. Required access must be maintained throughout the life of the project. 6. Public access features shall be separated from residential uses through the use of setbacks, low walls, berms, landscaping, or other device of a scale and materials appropriate to the site. 7. Shared public access between developments is encouraged. Where access is to be shared between adjacent developments, the minimum width for the individual access easement may be reduced, provided the total width of easements contributed by each adjacent development equals a width that complies with Fire Department requirements and/or exceeds the minimum for an individual access. 0. . 0 0 0 . v c u i >' h 0. • .a O Proposed trail is located in Fort Dent Park and connects to the existing Green River Trail; Monster Road, and other public sites in City of Renton Applicant has applied for a variance to develop a 16 foot wide trail instead of an 18 foot wide trail. (12 feet paved with 2 foot shoulders on each side) Applicant has applied for a variance to develop a 16 foot wide trail instead of an 18 foot wide trail. (12 feet paved with 2 foot shoulders on each side) x x x x 8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park, or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed to accommodate logical future connections. C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section 18.44.100(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows: 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage to meet the standards of a 14-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. 2. Development on Properties Where New Trails are Planned. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public access requirements by dedicating an 18-foot- wide trail easement to the City for public access along the river D. Publicly -Owned Shorelines. 1. Shoreline development by any public entities, including but not limited to the City of Tukwila, King County, port districts, state agencies, or public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in this section. 2. The following requirements apply to street ends and City - owned property adjacent to the river: f , a • •0 C E 0 Eu Subject to a variance from 18 to 14 feet Ask Jason about RR properties Should be more fully developed Ask for ideas x x x x x a. Public right-of-way and "road -ends," or portions thereof, shall not be vacated and shall be maintained for future public access. b. Unimproved right-of-ways and portions of right-of-ways, such as street ends and turn -outs, shall be dedicated to public access uses until such time as the portion becomes improved right-of- way. Uses shall be limited to passive outdoor recreation, car top boat launching, fishing, interpretive/educational uses, and/or parking, which accommodates these uses, and shall be designed so as to not interfere with the privacy of adjacent residential uses. c. City -owned facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall provide new trails and trail connections to the Green River Trail in accordance with approved plans and this SMP. d. All City -owned recreational facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, unless qualifying for an exemption as specified in this chapter, shall make adequate provisions for: (1) Non -motorized and pedestrian access; (2) The prevention of trespass onto adjacent properties through landscaping, fencing or other appropriate measures; (3) Signage indicating the public right-of-way to shoreline areas; and (4) Mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of the shoreline from public use. E. Public Access Incentives. 1. The minimum yard setback for buildings, uses, utilities or development from non-riverfront lot lines may be reduced as follows: r I. a 0 E x x x x x x x x x a. Where a development provides a public access corridor between off -site areas, or public shoreline areas to public shoreline areas, one side yard may be reduced to a zero lot line placement; or b. Where a development provides additional public access area(s) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total building area, the front yard (the landward side of the development) may be reduced by 50%. 2. The maximum height for structures may be increased by 15% when: a. Development devotes at least 5% of its building or land area to public shoreline access; or b. Development devotes at least 10% of its land area to employee shoreline access. 3. The maximum height for structures under TMC Section 18.44.070.C.3. and this section may be increased by a maximum of 25% when: a. One of the criteria in above (TMC Section 18.44.100.E.2) is met; and b. The applicant restores or enhances the entire shoreline buffer, including, but not limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property to offset the impact of the increase in height. Buffer restoration/enhancement projects undertaken to meet the requirements of TMC Section 18.44.100(F) do not qualify as restoration or enhancement for purposes of the height incentive provided in this subsection. c. No combination of incentives may be used to gain more than a 25%total height increase for a structure. ', H a o c E Proposal is a public trail X X X X X X 4. The maximum height for structures may be increased for properties that construct a 14-foot-wide paved trail with a 2-foot- wide shoulder on each side for public access along the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments, or where, in the case of properties containing or abutting existing public access trails, the existing trail either meets the standard of a 14-foot- wide trail with 2-foot-wide shoulders on either side or the property owner provides any necessary easements and improvements to upgrade the existing trail to that standard along the property frontage. During the project review, the increased height shall be affirmatively demonstrated to: a. Not block the views of a substantial number of residences; b. Not cause environmental impacts such as, but not limited to, shading of the river buffer or light impacts adversely affecting the river corridor; and c. Achieve no net loss of ecological function. In no case shall the building height be greater than 115 feet pursuant to this provision. F. Exemptions from Provision of On -Site Public Access. 1. Requirements for providing on -site general public access, as distinguished from employee access, will not apply if the applicant can demonstrate one or more of the following: a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist related to the primary use that cannot be prevented by any practical means. b. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions. F L H O O C Fencing is being used to separate trail users from RR right of way. >< >< X X X X X c. The cost of providing the access, easement or other public amenity on or off the development site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development. d. Unavoidable environmental harm or net loss of shoreline ecological functions that cannot be adequately mitigated will result from the public access. e. Access is not feasible due to the configuration of existing parcels and structures, such that access areas are blocked in a way that cannot be remedied reasonably by the proposed development. f. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between the proposed access and adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. g. Space is needed for water -dependent uses or navigation. 2. In order to meet any of the above -referenced conditions, the applicant must first demonstrate, and the City determine in its findings through a Type II decision, that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted including, but not limited to: a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; b. Designing separation of uses and activities through fencing, terracing, hedges or other design features; or Lake to Sound Trail: L16--0016 Notes Project is using fencing to separate tracks from trail users - What about landscaping and si na e? X X X X o c d a`-oo 0 col — •d N Q. x o a 0 x x 18.44.110 Shoreline Design Guidelines The following standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Respect and reflect the shape of the shoreline; b. Orient building elements to site such that public river access, both visual and physical is enhanced; c. Orient buildings to allow for casual observation of pedestrian and trail activity from interior spaces; d. Site and orient buildings to provide maximum views from building interiors toward the river and the shoreline; e. Orient public use areas and private amenities to the river; f. Clearly allocate spaces, accommodating parking, vehicular circulation and buildings to preserve existing stands of vegetation or trees so that natural areas can be set aside, improved, or integrated into site organization and planning; g. Clearly define and separate public from non-public spaces with the use of paving, signage, and landscaping. 2. Building Design. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. To prevent building mass and shape from overwhelming the desired human scale along the river, development shall avoid blank walls on the public and river sides of buildings. A 1 5 Railroad tracks, which bridge the proposed trail, are being separated with black plastic vinyl coated chain link fencing. X X X X X X X X X X X b. Buildings should be designed to follow the curve of the river and respond to changes in topography; buildings must not "turn their back" to the river. c. Design common areas in buildings to take advantage of shoreline views and access; incorporate outdoor seating areas that are compatible with shoreline access. d. Consider the height and scale of each building in relation to the site. e. Extend site features such as plazas that allow pedestrian access and enjoyment of the river to the landward side of the buffer's edge. f. Locate lunchrooms and other common areas to open out onto the water -ward side of the site to maximize enjoyment of the river. g. Design structures to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features such as: (1) plazas and landscaped open space that connect with a shoreline trail system; (2) windows that offer views of the river; or (3) pedestrian entrances that face the river. h. View obscuring fencing is permitted only when necessary for documentable use requirements and must be designed with landscaping per the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Other fencing, when allowed, must be designed to complement the proposed and/or existing development materials and design; and i. Where there are public trails, locate any fencing between the site and the landward side of the shoreline trail. 1 Trail is relatively flat with no barriers Additional planting could occur in RR ROW A bench at the intersection of the two trails would be appropriate Clarify materials for bench — Installed with a concrete footing and 3" square metal tubing -for -support Ask f6r Section 8-30 - Jason — can you provide an example of where this chute is used elsewhere — Why is fencing proposed on one side of section under tracks? X X 3. Design of Public Access. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Public access shall be barrier free, where feasible, and designed consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. b. Public access landscape design shall use native vegetation, in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Additional landscape features may be required where desirable to provide public/private space separation and screening of utility, service and parking areas. c. Furniture used in public access areas shall be appropriate for the proposed level of development, and the character of the surrounding area. For example, large urban projects should provide formal benches; for smaller projects in less -developed areas, simpler, less formal benches or suitable alternatives are appropriate. d. Materials used in public access furniture, structures or sites shall be: (1) Durable and capable of withstanding exposure to the elements; (2) Environmentally friendly and take advantage of technology in building materials, lighting, paved surfaces, porous pavement, etc, wherever practical; and (3) Consistent with the character of the shoreline and the anticipated use. e. Public -Private Separation. (1) Public access facilities shall look and feel welcoming to the public, and not appear as an intrusion into private property. 4- 0 Cr) G1 d X (2) Natural elements • Lake to Sound Trail: L16-0016 Notes Discuss Invasives along Black River Invasives along Green River exempt Removal is by hand No rip rap removal planned Ask applicant to explain Confirm Condition Condition Condition a) 7) m • o O. za X X X X X X 0 a 0 a .o c £ a'0 u x H 4-. a) a o. o E O. v x x x x x 18.44.080 C — Landscaping Requirements 1 General Requirements (except SF development of 4 or fewer lots) a. The amount of required landscaping depends on the size of the development. b. Invasive vegetation must be replaced by native vegetation. c. For properties behind levees, the applicant is not required to remove invasive or plant native vegetation within the buffer. d. A Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit is required if the removal of invasive plants will require mechanized equipment. e. Vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed. f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years. g. Vegetation used shall be a combination of plants in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table. of the 2004 Washington Stream HabitatRestoration Guidelines (as amended) I h. Street trees may be non-native. i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock. j. Plants in non -buffer areas shall meet size standards. See 18.44.080 C.1.j k. Smaller plants are preferred in the buffer. I. Site prep and plantings shall use best management practices m. Plants may be selected to allow view and/or access corridors. n. Vegetation shall be maintained by the property owner including regular removal of invasive species. o. Areas where invasive plants were removed, native species shall be replanted. p. Utilities shall be screened; utility easements shall be landscaped with groundcover; loading docks shall have landscaping that provides visual separation from river. N 41 O Z Applicant is only planting along bank to top of slope Explain plan Q z E 4- c 0 U x x x x x x x x x x 2 Requirements for land within the River Buffer for all Shoreline Environments a. Planting plan must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist; may be waived for single-family property owners. b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of Buffer unless unsafe. c. Plants shall be native that can provide shade over water d. Plant spacing per River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table (see 18.44.080.C.2) e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are established. An irrigation plan is required. f. If a mid -slope bench exists on a levee, it must be planted with native vegetation. 3 Requirements for Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments Outside the River Buffer TMC 18.52 requirements shall apply, except: a. Parking Lot Landscape Perimeters: See TMC 18.44.080 C.3.a b. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: See TMC 18.44.080 C.3.b c. Requirements for landscaping in yards not adjacent to the river may be reduced as follows: 1. Where development provides a public access corridor; or 2. Where development provides additional public access area(s) D. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. Applies to all existing and new development. 1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline ecological function (exempt from permit requirements). Topping prohibited except where necessary due to utility conflicts. 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. 3. Use of Pesticides M 4- 0 N a) on (O a v, a, 0 Z ai ea o ▪ a Z < ▪ 0 v N a .o c E O.-0 u Confirm x x a. Shall not be used except where: 1. alternatives are not feasible; 2. use has been approved through vegetation or management/monitoring plan; 3. applied in accordance with state regulations; 4. approved for aquatic use by the EPA; and 5. written approval from the City and DOE or WA DOA Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued 3.b. Self-contained rodent bait boxes designed to prevent access by other animals are allowed. 3.c. Outdoor recreational uses that involve maintenance of extensive areas of turf shall provide and implement an integrated turf management program or integrated pest management plan designed to ensure that water quality in the river is not adversely impacted. Moira Bradshaw From: Rich, Jason <Jason.Rich@kingcounty.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 5:21 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Cc: 'jbailey@parametrix.com'; Jennifer Dvorak Subject: RE: L2ST Jason Rich 0:206-477-4582 M:206-427-8576 From: Moira Bradshaw[mailto:Moira.Bradshaw@TukwllaWA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:21 AM To: Rich, Jason Subject: RE: L2ST Thanks for checking in. I'm putting the finishing touches on the SSDP Staff report and need a response from you as to whether you agree and If possible how you would meet the concerns listed below. You've answered #2 from the Tribes in your email below. Thanks V. PUBLIC COMMENTS The public comment period closed on May 13, 2016. E-mail comments were received from Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. (Attachment 4) The e-mail from the Tribe raised concerns about: f 1. The temporal loss of future wood recruitment function due to the removal of 15 trees larger than 4 inches in diameter. KC Parks will use several of the tree trunks along the bank as shown in the previously submitted sketch. This addition will be reflected in the 95% plans. 2. The potential impact of the project on projects identified in the Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan — WIRA 9. 3. Full safe access to Indian fishing sites on the Green River during project construction. The project does not intend to limit access to fishing sites along the Green River. The limits of construction are constrained to the clearing and grading limits shown on the drawings, and well above the OHWM. The City of Renton provided a comment letter (Attachment 5) asking that mitigating measure identified during the SEPA review of this project should be conditions of Tukwila permits: 1. All construction activity shall stop if cultural resource artifacts are discovered during construction. Notification of concerned Tribes, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the City of Renton Planning Division. The construction contract will contain an Unanticipated Discovery Plan directing the contractor to stop work in the case of a discovery. The plan spells out the required notifications has been implemented successfully on the recent Lake to Sound Segment B project 2. Contractors working in Tukwila and hauling within Renton shall comply with City of Renton haul route hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. Understood From: Rich, Jason [mailto:Jason.Rich@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 5:39 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Subject: RE: L2ST I had intended on calling you earlier today, but ala the time has slipped away. I would like to wrap up this conversation soon if possible so that we may work on a 95% revision to our plans. I had our engineer look at the slopes and distances and it seems like the 200 cy shoreline project would fit easily with the current trail alignment. Let me know if you need anything from me. Jason Rich 0:206-477-4582 M:206-427-8576 From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto: Moira.Bradshaw@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 5:58 PM To: Rich, Jason Cc: Mike Perfetti; Minnie Dhaliwal Subject: L2ST Jason — I checked in with Mike Perfetti today. He has been discussing the potential WRIA LG18 project with a number of people. He's done a sketch of the potential project and done some refinements based upon input from Elisa and you (I believe) I would first like to confirm or eliminate the issue of the archeological site relative to the WRIA LG18 project. If that is not an issue for that WRIA project then we can discuss whether it's appropriate to look at any trail realignment. Mike knows the archeologist and is currently working with him on another site. He is trading phone calls with the archeologist but hopes to get an opinon from him on this question. My expectation is that this question and any refinements on the potential WRIA project will be developed by the end of the month. If needed I'll schedule a meeting the first week in July or if not needed call you to discuss a final recommendation for the SMP., Thanks for your patience and cooperation in finding a solution that works for both goals. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Community Development Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431 3651 T, Th 8:30-5:00; W 8:00-12:00 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I _Moira Carr Bradshaw_ (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 7 April 2016_ the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at Fort Dent Park on the Green River Trail_ so as to be clearly seen from each right-of-way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number L16-0016 and L16-0017. 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 rernoved 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 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 this day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires Moira Bradshaw From: Rich, Jason <Jason.Rich@kingcounty.gov> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:15 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Cc: Rick Still Subject: RE: substantive review of shoreline permit for L2ST Attachments: Tukwila questions response.docx Moira, Our comments attached. Jason Rich 0:206-477-4582 M:206-427-8576 From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:Moira.Bradshaw@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:36 PM To: Rich, Jason Cc: Rick Still Subject: substantive review of shoreline permit for L2ST Hi Jason — I'm sorry to inundate you with paper but we've got some handy matrices that capture all the standards. I've highlighted the items that I need to talk with you about and or potentially need a response; I'm also providing a simple summary below of items in the matrices that we should discuss. I'm copying Rick because I'm guessing the City will be responsible for long term maintenance - not sure if or when that would start and some of these items have a maintenance component. See Development Standards Lighting Please explain if there is any and describe or point me to the plans Storm Water How is it being handled? Is it low impact development? Is there a trash can located anywhere in the Tukwila segment? Signs Specific signs needed where trail crosses private property; Information signage with name and direction/destination info for Lake to Sound. See Public Access What easements will there be for the RR ROW See above regarding signage and RR ROW/private property Do you have suggested mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of shoreline due to public use? See Shoreline Design Would like to discuss the use of fencing on the south side of the chute under the railroad tracks — are there other more natural ways of defining the public versus the private space? It seems like the intersection of the two regional trails should have a bench and possibly a trash can — Rick, I'm thinking you could weigh in on this. Please provide a spec for the furniture proposed. (Section 8-30?) See Landscaping Explain how the new plant material will be irrigated Is there something creative/fun/cool that could be used around the chain link fencing? It seems like the rest of the trail is well landscaped See Vegetation Protection and Landscaping The overlay of the plan sheets makes it difficult to confirm the trees and their size. May need information on age of trees to be retained that need protection. Is it possible to get a sheet that is just the survey? What assurance will there be for plant viability and long term health? Provide a plan for saving large woody debris and placing it in appropriate locations Verify use of riprap and turf Explain invasive removal or direct to location on plans. Explain the timing of the removal and planting Confirm use of pesticides/herbicides I'll be in on Monday and can go over any of these items then. I will need to coordinate with our environmental planner on a few of the items. Thanks again for you attention. I'm hoping we can answer most if not all of these questions by next week so that the variance hearing staff report can be completed and sent to the Hearing Examiner. Regards, Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Community Development Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 4313651 T, Th 8:30-5:00; W 8:00-12:00 The City of opportunity, the ccmmunity of choice z F W 1 11111 111.E1�it IIllf111111 1111 Ilfu111111111111ullllllI 1111 i_IIIIIluull1llilulll1111�1111• IIIIIII11111111u111u111111u1 IIII111111111111111iu1111 1111 11111 1111.1I1111 ,111 I 1 u 11,111 I111111111I111f1111 1111 111111111111111141111111 illl I111111II 111111 011111hIIll 11.11I11111 IlulIII um im Illilillliull11111111u1_ llll IIIWluu1111111111u11 IIII 111i(111111i11u11111111u 11U , II1111u111ui1Wllulul 1111 I1111111u1u11u1I11111 u11 II1u111111111111111 11Ill 11 1: 111 IIIllllillll lII 111 1i11{(1tl:Illf llllll 1111 �. 1 t I uululu% I111111II111111111u1111111 Ilia III111111111111III1111111u1111 ' IIIf111111111i1111111111111 111 TYPICAL SECTION HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE STANDARD PLAN 1-10.10-01 ( Denis Law Mayor January 14, 2016 Jason Rich, Capital Projects King County Parks King Street Center, 7th FI 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 Cornmunity & Economic Development Department RE CEIV�""®ip"Vincent, Administrator JAN 1.52616 Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segement A, LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Mr. Rich: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 11, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on February 16, 2016 at 11:00 am to consider the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Jason Rich, Capital Projects Page 2 of 2 January 14, 2016 If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-6593. For the Environmental Review Committee, le -Jo SAP."446.4.100.1 Kris Sorensen Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Jenny Bailey / Contractor Jack Pace, Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg / Party(ies) of Record Project LG-18: Black River Marsh at RM 11.0 (Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile 11.0, right bank. The project would remove about 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River at the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks. This small area would then be planted with appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large stumps with root wads would be placed to provide cover. A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created along the banks of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Opportunities and Constraints • The site has significant infrastructure that will make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive plant species now dominate the site. • In 2005, volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the south bank of the Black River just west of the Black River Pump Station. Black River confluence with the Green/Duwamish. Black River is to right. Railroad bridges are visible in the distance. February 2005 photo. LINKAGES C Cocservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (All-2) • Preventing new bank armoring and removing existing armoring (A11-6) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) GO Habitat t.lanagement Strategies • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off - channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines • Substitute ecological processes with habitat features 1:0) Project LG-17: Levee Setback Between RM 11.7 and 11.4 (Right Bank) Lower Green River looking downstream at river mile 11.7. To right is Fort Dent Park showing levee and possible bank set back area. February2005 photo. LlM.tAG:s CI Co-:s nzt:u:7 i,,petihestis i 4 csedd • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (All-2) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) OD itabitzt J..2n,es* . nt Strztes i;+, • Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss of slow water areas by placement oflarge woody debris along banklines Project Description Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints • Permission must be obtained by the City of Tukwila, and implementers will need to work with the company that manages the soccer complex on this parcel to design this project in a way that minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may also present challenges for implementation. Chapter 4 Research Design Objectives and Expectations The proposed project is located within the Duwamish Valley where the Black and Green rivers come together to form the Duwamish River. As would be expected in such an environment, multiple precontact sites have been recorded within a 1-mile radius of the APE. One NRHP-listed site, 45KI438, has been mapped within the APE. The environment and the presence of multiple sites in the vicinity suggest that encountering cultural resources in the APE is highly likely. The archaeological methods presented in this chapter were designed to determine whether buried cultural deposits are located in the APE that could be affected by the proposed project. Precontact Site 45KI438 The White Lake site is located on the south bank of the Black River at its confluence with the Green River. Comprising two loci (45KI438 and 45KI438A), it is listed in the NRHP under criterion D for its important information to prehistory (Lewarch 1995). Documentation of the site consists of the NRHP nomination form (Lewarch 1995), a construction monitoring report (Robbins et al. 1996), a data recovery report (Lewarch et al. 1996), and a survey report (Rinck 2008). Lewarch (et al. 1996) states that the constituents of the archaeological assemblage from this site indicate food was gathered nearby for immediate consumption and that the site was occupied during summer, fall, and perhaps winter. Based on ethnohistoric and archaeological data, Lewarch (Lewarch et al. 1996) also suggests the White Lake site is affiliated with the Duwamish winter village Sgoa'Igo, located on the south bank of the Black River. The White Lake site data sets provide necessary information in developing an understanding of the hunter -gather -fisher settlement subsistence pattern in the Green River-Duwamish Valley. Coupled with other archaeological and ethnohistoric data for the Green River-Duwamish Valley, the site is integral in developing a detailed model of the complex subsistence and settlement patterns for the last 500 years. 45KI438 (Southern Locus) The southern locus of the site (45KI438) was identified in June 1994 during pipeline construction monitoring, in Fort Dent Park, (Robbins et al. 1996). The cultural deposits, described as discrete thin lenses, of 45KI438 had a limited horizontal extent along the east sidewall of the pipeline trench. Each cultural deposit was excavated as a natural stratum by hand, and the matrix from each cultural stratum was water -screened off site. Site 45KI438 contains two cultural horizons, separated by alluvial flood deposits. The lower cultural horizon was identified at a depth of 150 to 165 centimeters (cm) below ground surface. Radiocarbon dating indicates this lower horizon was deposited between 487 and 300 BP. Food remains recovered from the lower horizon included small mammal bone and teeth fragments, bay Cultural Resources Survey Report 4-1 July 2011 King County Department of Transportation Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Setting eroded, or deeply buried as a result of rapid worldwide, eustatic sea level rise since the end of the Pleistocene epoch and valleys infilling with sediment since the early Holocene. Period II (6,000 to 2,500 BP) Between 6,400 and 3,800 BP, sea levels began to stabilize. As a result of this stabilization, many of the area's river outlets began to develop habitats similar to modern estuaries. This estuary formation and subsequent salmon colonization has been cited as the driving force behind socioeconomic development in the Pacific Northwest (Fladmark 1975).However, well-known Northwest Coast traits such as multifamily houses and ascribed status are not present in this time period. Trade networks become evident at this time with raw material from the Cascade foothills, northern Puget Sound, and the plateau being exchanged through various intermediaries. Large shell middens appear at this time potentially indicating resource specification and increased sedentism, although earlier presence of such shell middens is probably masked by fluctuations in sea level. Artifact assemblages are dominated by bone tools, and may be a reflection of the better preservation conditions provided by shell middens (Linse 1992). Increased frequency of ground -stone tools at sites from this time period indicates an increased time investment in the creation of technology. Period II is represented regionally by the assemblage recovered from a prehistoric village site (stuwe'yugw) located along the Tolt River in eastern King County. This assemblage has helped to define what is called the Tolt Phase (c. 7,100 to 3,600 BP), and primarily includes components classified as part of the Olcott or Cascade traditions, which are defined as basic stone -tool -reduction technologies such as crypto-volcanic rock (CVR) cobble core/flake reduction (Blukis Onat et al. 2001). Cascade sites are recognized by the leaf -shaped Cascade points, which have been found across western Washington and have been dated to the last 8,000 years in various archaeological contexts. The relationship between Olcott and Cascade is unclear —they may be contemporaneous or sequential. More archaeological investigation in the region is needed before the relationship can be determined. Period III (2,500 to 250 BP) The cultural traits recognized as typical of the Northwest Coast appeared during this time period, such as a salmon -based subsistence economy and ascribed status. Continued adaptive strategies, specialized economic activities, complex social structure, and winter village occupations were also present during this period. Smaller summer camps and resource procurement sites supported a dispersed population that then gathered at the large, semi -permanent winter village (Suttles and Lane 1990:485). Villages, base camps, and activity areas associated with this period have been recorded on the Enumclaw Plateau (Hedlund 1973,1976, 1983). Analysis of faunal materials from numerous coastal and riverine sites in the south-central Pacific Northwest indicates that salmon remained an important, consistently exploited resource in the region (Butler and Campbell 2004). There is a sharp increase in warfare on a regional scale that is coupled with a peak regional population c. 1,000 BP (Ames and Maschner 1999). Burial customs were highly variable during this period as well. One archaeological site, (45KI438 or the White Lake site) dates to this period; it is located in the APE and may support this idea. The White Lake site consists of a multiple occupation prehistoric shell midden. The site is in the vicinity of an ethnographically known Duwamish village called Sgoa'lgo Cultural Resources Survey Report 7-d July 2011 City of T wil Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION March 30, 2016 Jason Rich, King County 201 S Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: PL16-0014, Lake to Sound Segment A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance Dear Jason: Your applications for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit and a Shoreline Variance were determined to be complete on March 30, 2016 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. Your next step is to contact Fast Signs Kent (206) 575-2110 or provide a 4 foot x4 foot public notice board on site within 14 days of this Notice of Completeness. Once you have contacted and paid them, they will contact us and we will work with them on Notice Board content and location. A public hearing on the Shoreline Variance has been set for 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 in the Rainier Conference Room, located in Suite 100, the office of Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. If you have any questions please call me at 206-431-3651 or email me at Moira.bradshaw@tukwilawa.gov Sincerely, //7 MoiraBradshaw Senior Planner CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION King County has filed a shoreline substantial development permit application to construct Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A connects a portion in the City of Renton and with a portion in the City of Tukwila. It travels along the Black River and connects with the Green River Trail at the north end of Fort Dent Park. A shoreline variance is requested to allow the trail to be 12 feet wide instead of the standard 14 feet wide as specified in Public Access to the Shoreline section of the Shoreline District chapter of the Tukwila Code. (TMC 18.44.100(C) (1).) Tukwila Permits applied for include: L16-0016 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Other known required permits include: City of Renton permits Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; Shoreline Conditional Use, and Shoreline Variance Studies required with the applications include: • Feasibility study • Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report • Critical Areas Study • Stream Discipline Report • Technical Information Report • Cultural Resources Survey Report (ICF 2011) • Cultural Resource Survey Memorandum for the Amended APE (Aqua Terra 2015) • 60-percent Plans • Draft Geotechnical Report A Determination of Nonsignificance Mitigated (MDNS) issued by the City of Renton on January 11, 2016. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila: L16-0016 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L16-0017 Shoreline Variance You may view the files at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Please call 206 431 3670 to make arrangements to view the files. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address below or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., May 11, 2016. Opportunity for additional oral and/or written comments are at a public hearing before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner scheduled for Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.in the Rainier Conference Room, at the DCD offices: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. Please confirm the hearing date and time by calling the DCD at (206) 431-.3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. Both the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance are appealable to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Moira Bradshaw at (206) 431-3651 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: March 17, 2016 March 25, 2016 April 11, 2016 i &tl of .J u1wiea Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: x Notice of Application Notice of Decision Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _8 day of _April 2016 Project Name: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Project Number: PL16-0014 Associated File Number (s): L16-0016, L16-0017 Mailing requested by: Moira Bradshaw Mailer's signature: tlexl: 0a I City of Tukwila N6-ace Of Application —Lake to Sots_ d Trail Segment A Project # PL16-0014 Applicant: King County Parks Division; Property Owners: City of Tukwila, BNSF, Union Pacific Project Planner: Moira Bradshaw 206.431.3651, moira.bradshaw@tukwilawa.gov File# Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L16-0016) and Shoreline Variance (L16-0017) Forest Trail ;r 41) Black River Riv " Forest Trail o Z Rail Corridor Lake to Sound Trail Segment A SW7thST Hearing Date: A public hearing will be held on June 7, 2016 at 9:30 am in the Department of Community Devel- opment (DCD) office, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 Project Description: The Lake to Sound Trail is a new trail that will extend from Lake Washington in the City of Renton to Puget Sound in the City of Des Moines. This trail is being built in segments. This segment is between the Black River Forest in Renton to the Green River Trail in Tukwila. The applicant is requesting a variance to build a 12 foot wide trail instead of the standard width of 14 feet. Your written comments on the project are requested, should be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila WA 98188 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 13, 2016. Information on this project is available for review at the above office. You may request a copy of any decision, comment on the project, and learn your appeal rights by calling the project planner listed above, or by visiting the DCD offices Monday -Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm. City of Tukwila Notice Of Application —Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Project # PL16-0014 Applicant: King County Parks Division; Property Owners: City of Tukwila, BNSF, Union Pacific Project Planner: Moira Bradshaw 206.431.3651, moira.bradshaw@tukwilawa.gov File# Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L16-0016) and Shoreline Variance (L16-0017) Hearing Date: A public hearing will be held on June 7, Forest Trail 2016 at 9:30 am in the Department of Community Devel- opment (DCD) office, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 Project Description: The Lake to Sound Trail is a new 0- > trail that will extend from Lake Washington in the City of Black River N Renton to Puget Sound in the City of Des Moines. This Forest trail is being built in segments. This segment is between the Black River Forest in Renton to the Green River Trail to in Tukwila. Rail Corridor enton Lake to Sound Trail Segment A SW 7th ST The applicant is requesting a variance to build a 12 foot wide trail instead of the standard width of 14 feet. Your written comments on the project are requested, should be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila WA 98188 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 13, 2016. Information on this project is available for review at the above office. You may request a copy of any decision, comment on the project, and learn your 1appeal rights by calling the project planner listed above, or by visiting the DCD offices Monday -Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm. \ City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project T Svedahl From: Teri Svedahl Sent:. Friday, April 08, 201E 10:25 AM To: 'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov' Subject: Tukwila Project Attachments: Lake_to_Sound.pdf Attached is the Notice of Application for a joint King County/City of Tukwila project; Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A. Please contact the project planner, Moira Bradshaw, with any questions. Moi =a..1:3radsha\ t l uh laWa.gov Thank you, Teri Land Use and Sign application intake hours are: M—F, 8:30 — 12:00 & 1:00-4:00 crai,s-adadaya.thavzatiaa,s-,,,,„,d City of Tukwila I Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Ste 1.00 I Tukwila WA 98188 Teri.SvedahlTukwila WA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. **NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.** a_ N LAST NAME FIRST NAME 00 V) 00 V1 00 rl LO a1 t.f) al to N 00 03 LD M N N Lf1 01 LO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO W 03 Ln l0 V) LD M O V) 0 Ln 0 L11 M tO L)1 Cr Lf) O O N 00 LO CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 LO ri O c-i O ri O Cr O r-I O c-I O Q1 t-I N ri h O M O O r•I Lf) ri r-1 r r r I ri r-I ri ri ri r•I CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 Cr) 00 oo CO LD CO 00 00 00 CO O 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 01 01 01 a1 al 01 01 Cr) O1 01 01 01 V) 01 01 a1 01 Cr) 01 01 01 LO CO 01 a1 01 01 01 01 01 01 a1 01 100 ANDOVER PARK W # 150 a) a) - J Michele & Lee Wai Man 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON CITY OF RENTON WA 10955 SE 169TH PL c +, - 4-, 00 N a, a) c O c O O coo • C7 C7 Y RENTON WA 11310 148TH AVE SE Z w 11627 SE 192ND ST ro a) TACOMA WA 119 S 60TH NEWCASTLE WA 11903 SE 71ST PL SEATTLE WA Z J 0 Z w w CC N 1201 MONSTER RD SW # 350 K & M HOLDINGS IV LLC 1214 TAYLOR AVE N # 301 RENTON WA 0` c L c(0 G w o0 -0 • (6 m C a C LJ ▪ D CO • c� aL+ C UV A * COQ (. ▪ G - m G* m * WHITEFISH MT 1270 KARROW AVE BURIEN WA 12811 12TH AVE S E 12918 1ST AVE SW # B 1299 ULUNIU RD C109 1333 32ND PL NE .I 13404 173RD ST E 13729 SE 256TH PL C to a) (O (0 N .Q E E Q1 Q c C N 0 E E (0 coLO O 0 FL- O D U m C� 2 w 0) 0s 0 c • 00 c 0) m a) 0 Z 0) 0 Winnie Wan Chi BELLEVUE WA 13910 SE 23RD ST ENSIGN PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA NE 1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP # 1640 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD FORT COLLINS CO 1425 SANFORD DR Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a a Q Q a g g g g Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DOMODOODO I- H F- I- I- I- H I--• H NTERURBAN AVE S NTERURBAN AVE S # 303 NTERURBAN AVE S tS BLDG ASSOC 14800 STARFIRE WAY NTERURBAN AVE S NTERURBAN AVE S NTERURBAN AVE S NTERURBAN AVE S NTERURBAN AVE S L n O e-i M Ln O O O O N 00 al a1 Cr) 01 Cr Cr Cl Cr Cr ri ri ri ri ri BURIEN WA 14928 18TH SW WCC CC CC CC CC CC CC W F- W W W W W W W CO CL) c • c cm CO m CO CO CO c • W Q W W W W W W W 7 0) 3 E (0 -(, * * w TUKWILA COMMUNITY rr ZZZZZZZ DDODDDD c2 c2 c2 c2 C2 c2 C2 G G G G G G G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U QU U QU U U g g g g g g g Y • Y Y Y Y Y Y DDDODDD ro I- I- I- I- 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO v rl ri r r1 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 rn CT) CT) rn al al rn al al al al CT) CT) al rn CT) al CT) CT) rn rn rn al al rn rn a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a g g g g g a g g 5 5 5 g a a a a a a a a a 5 a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ]C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 1 F I I E- 1 1- 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 1 F 1 D 1 O 1 F 1 F 1 I- F- F- I- I- F- F- F- F- F- F- I- F- F- I- I-- F- I- I- F- F- I- F- F- F- F- 14973 INTERURBAN AVE S 15100 65TH AVE S 15130 65TH AVE S 15138 65TH AVE S # 101 15138 65TH AVE S # 102 15138 65TH AVE S # 103 15140 65TH AVE S # 208 15138 65TH AVE S # 104 15138 65TH AVE S # 105 15138 65TH AVE S # 106 15138 65TH AVE S # 107 15138 65TH AVE S # 108 15138 65TH AVE S # 109 15138 65TH AVE 5 # 111 15138 65TH AVE S # 112 15138 65TH AVE S # 114 15138 65TH AVE S # 115 15138 65TH AVE S # 116 15138 65TH AVE S # 117 15138 65TH AVE S # 118 15138 65TH AVE S # 119 15138 65TH AVE S # 120 15138 65TH AVE S # 121 15140 65TH AVE S # 201 15140 65TH AVE S # 202 co cc cc ce d' cc cc cc cc CC CC Cr CC CC Cr C: CC CC CC CC CC Cr CC Cr W W W W W W W W W W W W W LL.l W W W W W W W W W W m m m CO CO 00 N CO 00CO 00 m 00 COCC1 CO COCO COCO on co co co on W W W W W W W W W W W %' W UJ LL.l W W W W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z Z Z .� Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z: Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a. O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 cu0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L. 0 (...) u 0 L ( u L) v u 0 u u Ll u 0 u 0 u 0 u 0 u u g a g a a J ▪ a a a a a :En g aa a a a g a a J a a Y Y Y Y Y Y to I- I- I- I- F- I- in F- 1- F- I- I- 2 I- I- 1- I- I- I- 1- F- 1- I- I- I- F- CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO • CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ol Ol 01 01 01 01 01 01 a N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q '' Q g Q Q Q g J Q g Q g Q Q Q W g Q a Q g Q J Q Q g a g g 5 g g>> Q g1— Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y le le H 1- 1- 1- H 1- 1- F- 1- 1- 1->> 1 uI >>>>>>> D ODDOODDDDD 0 I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- (I) I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- rn O N 00 v v ♦- r1 c 1 N N N (NI N N N 00 Z it D V) N V) V) V) V) LLJ W W W W W > > > > > > 4. Q Q Q Q < i: _ = 2 = _ I- H ♦- F- I--' - V) Lfl lf) 111 Lfl ll'1 ll1 Ll1 Ln u1 Lfl Ln Lfl Lfl LI) Lfl Lf) Ln L!) Ln L!) W l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 LO lD lD up lD l0 lD lD LD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �. .4- �' ci c-1 c-I a --I a-i c-I ci rl ri c-I r-I c-I r-J c-I r-I ci ci r'J ci c.i Lll LA L!1 to Lfl LJ7 Ln Lfl Ll) Ln Ill 111 L!i L11 Lfl Lfl Lfl Ln Lfl Ll) Q ,-I r-1 LAST NAME FIRST NAME 15142 65TH AVE S # 301 15142 65TH AVE S # 302 15142 65TH AVE S # 303 15142 65TH AVE S # 304 15142 65TH AVE S # 305 15142 65TH AVE S # 306 15142 65TH AVE S # 307 15142 65TH AVE S # 308 15142 65TH AVE S # 309 15142 65TH AVE S # 310 15142 65TH AVE S # 311 15142 65TH AVE S # 312 15142 65TH AVE S # 313 CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC oC oC Y C CC CC CC CC CC IY ▪ E0CC CC W W W W W W W W W W W W E W W O CD W W W W W W W LU m CO m m m m m m m m m m 0 m m 2 0.0 N m m m m m m e) • m m w ��www�www w▪ cc,ww: a)- • f6• LI• Dwwwww =CU wo• wl v z z z z z z z z z z zz z O • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U N U g '15 5 5 J J 5 5 J J 00 5 NCY as o I- f- I- H H I- I- I- I- = I- I- O • U TUKWILA COMMUNITY z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U 0) g g g g g g W 0) t 7 O (0 N O D D D O o) D f- H- F- f- F- t- C7 H w TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 M CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO i--I c- I t--I c-i r-I t--I c- I t--I c-i e--I c-i e-I c-i c-I v- 1 ci e-I 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 01 01 01 CT 01 CT) 01 01 01 CT) 01 al 01 01 01 01 01 Q1 01 01 01 Ol a g or a a g 5 g g 5 g g a 5 g a 5 g g __ Y Y Y Y Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Vic: Y Y Y Y Y Y D D D D W D D D D O D D O O D _) O D O D O D I— I— F- F- v) I— I— F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I— I-- F- F- I— F- F- F- 15142 65TH AVE S # 314 15142 65TH AVE S # 315 15142 65TH AVE S # 316 15142 65TH AVE S # 317 15142 65TH AVE S # 318 15144 65TH AVE S # 401 15144 65TH AVE S # 402 15144 65TH AVE S # 403 15144 65TH AVE S # 404 15144 65TH AVE S # 405 15144 65TH AVE S # 406 15144 65TH AVE S # 407 15144 65TH AVE S # 408 15144 65TH AVE S # 409 15144 65TH AVE S # 410 15144 65TH AVE S # 412 15144 65TH AVE S # 413 15144 65TH AVE S # 414 15144 65TH AVE S # 415 15144 65TH AVE S # 416 15144 65TH AVE S # 417 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc W W W LLJ W W W W LLJ W W W W L W 00 on co on co o0 on co co co co co co co i CD co = Q W WW 00WLU W W LU LU L, WW C ccWCccCcGcm G cGCCI c Ccc m m ZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZ O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 U U 3 0 0 0 U U U U U U 0 J J .� Q Q J J J J J J C to J_ J 5_ 0.0 C Y Y 00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y L F- F- 2 I— I— F- I— I— I— > I— I— I— Cameron L TUKWILA COMMUNITY a N Nr U LAST NAME FIRST NAME 15144 65TH AVE S # 418 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO r r %-1 r-i r-I r-I r1 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO rn rn a) al al al al of al al of al of al rn C11 c orn c a, 01 o rn rn O al al of al of al al a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a J J J J Sr J J aJ J a J J J J a J J J J J J J J w a g a DDDDDDDDDDDODOODOODDDDDD 1- I- F- F- f- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F-- F- F- I- F- 1- F- I- F- 1- 00 a) O O t11 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V) V) V) V) V) V) V) W W W W W W LLJ > > aaaaaaa: _______: 1— 1- 1— 1— 1— 1— 1-- Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Li) u) LO lO lO lO lO lL) lO lO lO lO lO lO LC) d• d d d d d d r-I r-I e-I r• I r-I e-I r-i Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln u'1 15145 65TH AVE S # 509 15146 65TH AVE S # 502 15146 65TH AVE S # 504 15146 65TH AVE S # 505 15146 65TH AVE S # 506 15146 65TH AVE S # 507 15146 65TH AVE S # 515 15146 65TH AVE S # 516 15146 65TH AVE S # 517 15146 65TH AVE S # 518 15148 65TH AVE S # 601 15148 65TH AVE S # 602 15148 65TH AVE S # 603 15148 65TH AVE S # 604 15148 65TH AVE S # 605 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DDDDDDDD F- I- F- 1- F- F- F- F- at 0 lO Lo N W a _ 1- 00 a-i 15148 65TH AVE S # 607 15148 65TH AVE S # 608 Ln 15148 65TH AVE S # 610 15148 65TH AVE S # 611 15148 65TH AVE S # 612 15150 65TH AVE S # 701 CC CC CC CC CC:CC CC CC i YC CC CC W U W W W W W W W W LU W W W O L W W ▪ vJ- (p W W 0) W CO i CO CO CO te+ t CO CO CO ffa CO CO CO CO CO CO "a a) CO CO a)E E m m Cwww • wwwbwW�LUWw. 15 UJwYWw oZ i a) O- 0 w TUKWILA COMMUNITY ;1 Z Z Z Z Z Z z: Z Z Z Z Z fa Z Z Z D O D D E D 0 2 2 2 O 2 2 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 U U U U Iy U C.J L� _ U U- U— U U co U Q U U c000c a >J_ JJ_ >J >J >J_ >J_ �S >J_ >J_ _>A . >J_ >J_ J_ 3 N m a_ J_ a_ -Too > Y Y Y U C Y Y Y Y Y Y C Y Y O Y • Y Y -a +_' • Y Y O- m O O O = a) D " O .a = f0 t = fa V) 0 1— 1— 1— 0 1— 1— 1— . 1— 1— 1— = 1— 1— Z 1— cc > 1— 1— cc 2 U 1- 1- a = 1- 15150 65TH AVE S # 702 Zi Wen & Ng Kam Yuk 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 ri ri r-I e-i a1 ri r-I r 1 a1 ri ri e1 a1 r-I a1 ri e1 ri ri ri c-i r-I r-1 a1 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO Ol 01 01 CT) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl Cr) CT) 01 CT) 01 01 Ol 01 a a < J J J a J a a J a J a a a J a J a J a J a J J J> J> J 5 J J J J J J J> J J J J J J J>> 5 J J 5 Y YDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ]C ▪ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F- I- I- F- F- F- F- F- i— F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I— F- F- F- F- F- I— M Cf to 01 01 O a1 N M ri e-I O 0 0 O O O 0 ri ri ri e-I a1 a1 a1 e1 ri N N N N N ri O N N N N- N- N N N N N N N t\ N- N N N N N N N N 00 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) N V) V) V) (1) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W IJJ W W W W W W W W a • a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a i = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = 3= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = I— I— F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I— II1 111 Vf1 VD If1 to V) tl1 IJ7 t1) 1f1 1A Li)111 ��) to 1f1 V) UD � (0(0t.0 O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N V) V) V) V1 V1 V) V1 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V1 V) V) V1 V) V) V) V) V) ri e-I e1 a1 a1 r-I ri ri a1 e-i e1 a1 a1 a1 a1 ri ri ri e1 a1 a1 ri ri r-I V) 0 V) V) V1 V) V) V) V) V1 V) V1 Vl V) V) V1 V) lfl l!) V) L.f) V1 V) r-I ri a1 a1 a1 ri ri ri e1 a1 c-i a1 a1 a1 ei ri ri e1 a1 a1 a1 a1 ri ri CC CC CL CC CC CC cC CC CC CC c CL CC CC CC CC W W W W W W W W W W O W W W W W -0 CO CO 00 CO N • CO m +� CO ++ CO co coy m m m m L .. on 2 C W W W W N W W N W C W W W u, 0.0 W W W W z i- W = Y 2 2 2 2 Y 2 2 a 2-1 2 2 2 c3 w 2 2_5 2 (n a — J t TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY v7 (0 E 0 L TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY TUKWILA COMMUNITY Scott Brook Adam R & Hether A TUKWILA COMMUNITY CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I 1-1 r-I r-I c-I ei c-I r-I r-I r•'I e•i e-I r 1 ri ri r-I r-I r-I r-I ri r-I r-I ri r-I e-1 e-I r I r-I r-I CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 O) 01 01 0) 01 Ol Ol 01 01 01 01 01 O) 01 0) 01 Cr) 01 Ol 01 01 01 Ol Cil Ol 0) 01 Cr) O) 01 01 01 01 0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 555555555555555555555Q5555555 F- 0 Ln W 0 0 LAST NAME FIRST NAME TUKWILA WA 15152 65TH AVE S # 802 TUKWILA WA 15152 65TH AVE S # 803 TUKWILA WA 15152 65TH AVE S # 804 SEATTLE WA 15152 65TH AVE S # 805 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DDDDDDDD DO DODODDDDDDDDDODDDDD F- I- F- F- I- H I- F- F- F- F-• F- F- F- F- F- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- F- I- 15152 65TH AVE S # 806 15152 65TH AVE 5 # 807 15152 65TH AVE S # 808 15152 65TH AVE S # 809 15152 65TH AVE S # 810 15152 65TH AVE S # 811 15152 65TH AVE S # 812 15152 65TH AVE S # 813 15152 65TH AVE S # 815 15152 65TH AVE S # 816 gcr ei r• 00 Ol 0 r 1 N m �t 00 r•i ri ri N N N N N 1- 00 00 0o ao 00 00 00 00 0_ xt: xt xk xt xt xk x* a L/L V L/) VI to N V) Lf1 Lf) LLl W W W W W W W W > > > > > > > > > F- ♦- Lfi Lfl Lfl Ln Lf1 Lf1 Lfl Lf1 Lfl lil l0 lD l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 (Ni N N N N N N N N Lf1 tll Lfl Lfl L17 Ln lf1 L!1 Lfl r-1 ri ri ri ri r1 c-i ri r-1 L.il Lf) Lf) Lf1 LP) Lf1 Ir L.fl Lfl r-I ri 15154 65TH AVE S # 901 15154 65TH AVE S # 902 15154 65TH AVE S # 903 15154 65TH AVE S # 904 15154 65TH AVE S # 905 15154 65TH AVE S # 906 15154 65TH AVE S # 907 15154 65TH AVE S # 908 15154 65TH AVE S # 909 15154 65TH AVE S # 910 N W W W W W W W W W W W LLJ W W W W W W W N W W W L- W -, COCO CO CO CO CO [0 on [0 > a) on m 00 on on On [0 0003 0) m 00 m > a) co c 2 2 2 222222 a)222222 c22 22 �222 ° rod L W W t W W W W W W W' W W W W W W L W W W W W W W L a) W Lc) o?S a) 0A a) EELIO z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z w z z z z z > > > 03 > > > > > > DDDDDD > > z > > > > > 00 0 0)000000 000000 o Y Y o Y t Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y GA Y Y •� Y Y Y +_ > > w F- F- CC F- NI I- I- I- F- F- I- 0 I- I- I- I- I- I- 0 I- I- . F- F- a F- F- F Y a 0 TUKWILA COMMUNITY 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO ei 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO 00 0 r I rl r 1 rl r1 r 1 ri rl ri ei rl r 1 1-1 r-I t-i ri e-i r-i r1 rl ri rl ei rl 00 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 01 01 01 al 01 01 Ol 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q< Q Q Q Q Q Q Q aY g aY aY a a a a a g a a g J g 5 Q g 0 0 0 g Q Y Y Y Y Q 00000000000000000000000 w F- I- I- F- F- F- I- F- F- I- I- F- F- F- F- F-- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- cn 15154 65TH AVE S # 911 15154 65TH AVE S # 912 15156 65TH AVE S # 1001 15156 65TH AVE S # 1002 15156 65TH AVE S # 1003 15156 65TH AVE S # 1004 15156 65TH AVE S # 1005 15156 65TH AVE S # 1006 15156 65TH AVE S # 1007 15156 65TH AVE S # 1008 15156 65TH AVE S # 1009 15156 65TH AVE S # 1010 15156 65TH AVE S # 1011 15156 65TH AVE S # 1012 15156 65TH AVE S # 1013 15156 65TH AVE S # 1015 15156 65TH AVE S # 1016 15156 65TH AVE S # 1017 15156 65TH AVE S # 1018 15200 65TH AVE S # 110 15200 65TH AVE S # 711 15200 65TH AVE S # 814 CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC 0 CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC w w 0 w w w w w w .c w w w w w w w w w CO CO L OnCO on co coCO N U m CO : CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 2 2fa E UJ 2 2 w 0) 2 0 E w 2- 2 2 w 2 2 2 2CO C0 TUKWILA COMMUNITY z z c Z Z 0 z z ZZZZZZZ 0000025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL U U 06 U U Q U U U U U U U U U -c5gaoggL•cag ggggggg c Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F- I- Y F- I- Y 2 F- F- 0 F- I- I- F- F- F- I- * a N LAST NAME FIRST NAME N CO lD 00 00 (.0 CO (.0 T-1 (.0 0 l0 l0 II) 00 d Ct e-i LA 01 N r-i 0 N 0 CO 01 111 0 00 d' 00 l0 .0 CO 1.0 N 0 0 l0 M l0 (.0 0 00 0 0 M to N N M N M M M 0 N i11 d M d 0 0 r1 e- I ci ei i 0 0- 0 M 0 O O1 O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CT) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a) 01 01 a) 01 a) a) 15410 SE 272ND ST # 39 1546 65TH AVE S # 503 BURIEN WA 15510 6TH AVE SW # 1 QLU Q Q W D N F— 1607 DES MOINES MEMORIAL DR 16156 65TH AVE S # 1001 BURIEN WA 16215 9TH AVE SW KENMORE WA 16360 SIMONDS RD NE CL N w > N CO ° l0 (1) O 00 S= Y vs (0 ▪ a1 — 0 W N • J 0 L - -I Q m cG J I- ii J BELLEVUE WA 16477 SE 46TH CT NORMANDY PARK WA 18107 NORMANDY TER SW 0A } 0) d d V (1) 00 -0J J L a) ° 06 E 01uCO H 7 >,(p U - } m m 1- li N* 2 Robert H & Arlene C a Z 1824 MAPLE LN # K59 SEATTLE WA 18501 BRITTANY DR SW KWAN FAMILY L L C PORT ORCHARD WA 1883 BAY ST 0 (0 a Aaron V & Diana P BELLEVUE WA 1940 124TH AVE NE STE A101 PPF INDUSTRIAL 951 MONSTER * LLJ (/1 Rashid & Sawita SEATTLE WA 201 S JACKSON ST # 512 KING COUNTY -WASTE WATER SEATTLE WA 201 S JACKSON ST # 700 KING COUNTY -PARKS 20221 90TH PL S 0 SEATTLE WA 20410 33RD AVE NE ISSAQUAH WA 21250 SE 42ND PL CLE ELUM WA 2131 LOWER PEOH PT RD AIRBORNE HOLDINGS LLC (0 3 > L a 0 C (0 * * m OC * > Z w 0 W W W Y w Y Y Y 21403 96TH AVE S 22302 97TH AVE W 23628 SE 127TH CT 23987 58TH CT S # D2 24115 118TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 2430 169TH PL SE BELLINGHAM WA 2450 38TH ST RENTON WA 2702 CEDAR AVE S MERCER ISLAND WA 2717 76TH AVE SE # 103 c (0 H '% U (0 >. 00 (1) 00 L .O Q c 03 0- cc is "a 0 ((00 U 0 (n > w U Q 0 Purificacion - (0 c L c (a ▪ (0 3 - > William J & Judith An MAPLE VALLEY WA 27758 214TH AVE SE Belcher-Pallis MERCER ISLAND WA 2835 82ND AVE SE # S-1 JOHN C RADOVICH DEV CO AUBURN WA 30028 45TH AVE S on on (0 on 5 Y c a) C7 a) m O N O V) Q J * J m- Nt.aN Lo< o_ o=_< U e«@ c 00 m 0 e e 000(N1 e_ 0 0# 7 0# v N» o- m mLO tD_ e- o ¥ 0_ 0 e 0 0 m 0 I 0- e 0 e_ e e m@ m# o _@@@ g w m m G m== I@<= 00 7@ a m m r101 c c@@# 701 Cr) @« e 701 m@ a SEATTLE WA 3046 ALKI AVE SW # 103 SEATTLE WA 3325 59TH AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 33638 38TH AVE S PALM HARBOR FL 3475 WOODRIDGE PARKWAY PORT ORANGE FL 3794 EMILIA DR c co 2 k § 2 / § q ) u M 2 12 5 ± cc / \ 4368 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD # 60 BELLEVUE WA 4509 160TH PL SE SEATTLE WA 4556 12TH AVE S o \ / - o k u 5 2 cc John & Jean k * J Thanh Minh & Chi Thai T MERCER ISLAND WA 4702 FOREST AVE SE GRA INVESTMENTS LLC AUBURN WA 4720 MILL POND DR SE # 507 OWENSOBORO KY 4801 FREDERICA ST 486 SUMMIT AVE 5008 S ROSE ST 5703 S LEO ST m I u 2 0 O O ± a e. E 2 L 2 L : 0 / _• _ m< 2 t 2 I O / / _ / / / c O < / k RENTON WA 595 MONSTER RD SW STE 100 SEATTLE WA 600 UNIVERSITY ST STE 1925 SEATTLE WA 6120 52ND AVE S 625 ILWACO AVE NE 6305 BEACH DR SW 6423 S 143RD PL 6426 S 144TH ST 6437 S 144TH ST 30. $ \ CO CIA c c / _ < 2 0 W % e co k/ _ a e O 2 2+ u• + 3 0+ <- — R Charles L & Elaine J TUKWILA COMMUNITY 00 00 00 00 00 CO .1h CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 N 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 I-1 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 O CO CO 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO ri 00 1--1 ei ei c-I e--1 1-1 • ri • 11 rl r-1 r-1 0 x--1 CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO d' 00 01 01 01 01 01 al 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a1 01 01 01 a1 al 01 01 01 01 01 01 C11 01 I� Ol d_ N Q Q Q Q Q Q a a Q a Q Q a Q <Q Q Q a a a Q Q a Q Q a Q Q Q a J J J J J Q J J J J J J _J Q a a a a a a z J J 5 J J 5 J J O J to O > N m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J O O O D O 0 0 00 O 0> 00 DDDDDDDO 00 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 I- I- I- F- 1- I- I- I- 1- I- I- F- F- 1- F-- I- F- F- F- F- 1- 1- a F- F- F- F- I- 1- I- I- 1- I- to to W CC 0 0 a LAST NAME FIRST NAME 6439 S 143RD ST 6440 S 144TH ST 6444 S 143RD ST 6456 S 144TH ST 6458 S 144TH ST 6460 S 144TH ST 6502 E "A" ST 6530 S 153RD ST # A 6530 S 153RD ST # F 6532 S 153RD ST 6532 S 153RD ST # B 6533 S 153RD ST # G 6534 S 153RD ST # C 6534 S 153RD UNIT C 6536 S 153RD ST 6536 S 153RD ST # D 6537 S 153RD ST # I 6538 S 153RD ST 6538 S 153RD ST # E 6715 FORT DENT WAY 6720 FORT DENT WAY cc cc cc cc cc 0: cc cc I- ▪ C: CC CC -� 1Y CC 0: 1r C✓ W W W W W W W W W W W Q3 W W W W W m m m m m m m m E m m m E m m L m m m 0• 222 W W W W W W W W Y W W W O �3 Rs W W 0 W W W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 J J J J J J ._ J Y O J J J Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C Y Y Y DDDDDD = 0 0 (0O O O I- I- I- I- I- F- >- f- I- 0 F- I- I- Marguerite 6750 FRANCIS LP SE RED 183 LLC 6835 FORT DENT WAY 6839 FORT DENT WAY # 134 6842 FORT DENT WAY 6915 FORT DENT WAY 6925 FORT DENT WAY 6935 FORT DENT WAY 6945 FORT DENT WAY 6955 FORT DENT WAY 7100 FORT DENT WAY CC w L CC CC CC CC CC Z CC W W W W W W W W m CO CO CO CO CO CO —3 CO W W W W W W W Z W Z Z DD 22 22 O O 0 0 a J J � Y Y 0 0 C7 I- I - Morales Jose R Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O • O O O O O O O O O O J J a J a 5 5 5 J J J Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I- I- I- * F- * F- F- F- F- I- I- * F- u1 m 00 01 0 V) 01 CO CO 01 I`, 00 CO m 00 N t0 Lr1 t0 ,1 0 N Lf) N u7 r-I rl ei m I.f) 0 0 0 ei u1 Lf) O t0 ri ri e-I O O T-I N e-I rl O O r-I r-I ci r-I (-NI O u) 00 00 00 00 00 00 m 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r-I CO 00 tD 01 01 01 01 01 01 N 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 b Q Q Q w Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d J • J J Q Z W O _l J Z O J J J J a a a aaWaaaao o- V) V) V) Z w in CC V) V) .e CC V) V) V) V) 7320 E GREENLAKE DR N # 202 J Richard & Linda 7517 GREENWOOD AVE N SCHNEIDER GERALD #14338 7914 S 120TH ST 8017 141ST AVE SE 808 DALEY ST 812 NE 175TH ST L `4:1) CO 814 E MAIN ST APPLE EIGHT SPE TUKWILA INC 8616 42ND AVE S 8624 RENTON AVE S 8865 OVERLAKE DR W 0) 901 POWELL AVE SW STE 101 9125 10TH AVE S QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK L L 9125 10TH S ANMARCO 950 N 72ND ST # 100 HILLCREST TUKWILA LLC uJ A L _ C as L a) C as g Ci i as> Q) atZS • c.)s_ c L c 0) � * —, V) >- * G - 0 __IJ C * * * 9748 57TH AVE S RENTON WA PO BOX 1463 SEATTLE WA PO BOX 16597 GLENDALE CA PO BOX 251006 RENTON WA PO BOX 3095 c as • c O � < CU O v) U to LL 0 J CO U Debra Latara OLYMPIA WA PO BOX 47016 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FORT WORTH TX PO BOX 961089 LL N z Ca C O fa3 (6 - 0 03 * * * Cr N ri M Cr Cr N N 00 Cr Cr Cr 00 V) CO lD Cr N N N LC) d ri N m 0 0 0 0 ri N 0 0 0 0 0) V) 0) tD N 01 O) O) 0 t•A O ri N ri 1) V) V) 0 0 0 V) ri r I r 1 0 -1 ri r-1 0 0 0 c-1 r-1 r I CO N 00 CO 00 CO CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 01 01 01 0) 01 01 0) 0) 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 CT) 01 01 01 01 01 UJ J U LLJ V) L) to w m 0 a 1- w 0 U z w l� a 4735 E MARGINAL WY S US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PORTLANC OR 911 NE 11th AVE FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 1200 6th AVE Q w V) NAT'L MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE PO BOX 48343 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY V) ri 0 N 0 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MILL CREE WA 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD WA FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ISSAQUAH WA 1775 12 AVE NW, STE 120 LARRY FISHER WA FISHERIES & WILDLIFE < a< a a a< a< a< a< a< w z Q Z d O U Z _I = = � J J JO>-QJ J m Qmmm<<< Q N Z< w w w w w LLJ w D D D w w w CD O N V) O 0' N m N Q Q Q N to to 3190 160th AVE SE NW REGIONAL OFFICE DEPT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47703 SEPA REVIEW WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY 201 S JACKSON ST., STE 700 KC PARKS & RECREATION 201S JACKSON ST., STE 600 ANDY LEVESQUE KC DEPARTMENT OF NAT'L RESOURCES 21630 11TH AVE S PLANNING DEPARTMENT 39015 172nd AVE SE 1055 S GRADY WAY PLANNING DEPARTMENT w LLI cc: trl t: 4-, 00 0CI r-I V) O O 00 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 415 SW 150th PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEPA CONTROL PLANNING & C PO BOX 34019 39015 172nd AVE SE Karen Walter 39015 172nd AVE SE Mike Middleton 4705 W MARGINAL WAY SW DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 210 S Hudson Street, Ste 332 DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN UP COALITION 1402 - 3rd Ave, Ste 1400 PEOPLE FOR PUGET SOUND d N CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 lD l0 lD l0 l0 LID lD lD ri r'1 1-1 ri r'1 ri ri r-I 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 171 01 al 01 Ol 01 Ol 01 00 00 00 00 00 LID VD lD lD lD r-I r-I i r-I r-I CO 00 00 CO CO 01 CT Ql 01 01 0o lD ri 00 Ol Q a a a a a a Q a a a a a a CO ri 00 01 CO CO L0 r-I r-I r-I 00 CO CO 01 01 01 CO CO 00 CO CO LID lD l0 l0 l0 c-i r-I r-I ri ri 00 CO 00 CO CO O1 01 01 01 01 00 l0 c-1 00 Ql 00 r-V 00 Q'1 0o L.D ri 00 Ol 0o lD ri 00 Q1 03 CO 00 r-I r-I r'1 CO 00 CO 01 01 01 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J <J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J DO DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ODDDDDDDDDDDDDDD I- H H 1- 1- I- I- I-- F- I- H F- H I- I-- H I- H H H I- F- 1- F- H H 1- I- I- H I- F- H NTERURBAN AVE Apt 1 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 10 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 12 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 13 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 14 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 15 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 16 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 17 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 18 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 2 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 3 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 4 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 5 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 6 M Ol 00 ri 01 00 e-i 01 00 Tr r-I M Q1 00 ri M Ol 00 a--1 M Ol 00 ri M Ol 00 ci M O1 CO r-I rn Ql CO -1 r-I M Ql 00 c--1 M Ol 00 ri M 01 00 ri M Ql 00 r-I ci LLJ i 2' m LLJ F- 2: NTERURBAN AVE Apt 8 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 9 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 37 CO 01 0 r-1 N M Lf1 lD M M V d nnnnnnnnn a a a a a Q a a Q W W Q a Z Z Q Q CO m CC CC cc cc W W }- Z Z W Z m W H Z W Z m cc cc W H Z W Z m cc W H Z W Z m cc H Z W > Z m cc W H Z W Z m cc cc W Z W Z m CC Z NTERURBAN AVE Apt 47 N Lf1 n W Z CO ct cc W H Z KJ M m Ol Ol Ol 00 00 00 d c-i ri c-I Lfl Ol 00 r-I Lit 01 00 c-I Lfi Ol 00 ri Lfl Ql 00 ri Lfi Ol 00 ri Lf1 Ql 00 ri LIl Ql 00 r1 Lf1 01 00 ci it O1 00 r-I Lf1 0) 00 c-I Ol 00 ri Lfl Q1 00 c-I 01 00 r-I 01 00 r-1 Ol CO c-I Lf1 01 00 ri CC CC CC CC CC CL CC CC CC CL CC CC cC C4 CC cL CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W m CO CO m m CO m m m m m m m m cJ m m m m m m m m m m 03 m m c0 m m m m 22222222222222222222 2222222222222 W LLI W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr G G G G G G G C C G G G G W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZ O O O D O D D D D D D O D D 222222222222222 222222222222222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Q_J 5 5 5 g J_J_J J J J J J J Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z DDMODDDDDDDD 222222222222 222222222222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U u u u u u u u u u u u J J J J J J J J J J J J Z Z Z Z Z Z DDDDDD 222222 222222 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 u u u U Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y: Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- F- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- F-• F- F- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- Y Y Y Y Y Y DDDDDD F- F- F- F- F- F- 00 CO CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 lD lD lD l0 l0 (JD l0 1.0 lD lD lD CD lD lD (CU) l0 CD l0 l0 l0 CO LC) lD lD (.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO 00 00 0) 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 Cr) 01 of Ol 01 01 CT) 01 0) 01 0l 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 5 a a g a a g J a g a 5 aa a g a g g 5 J H F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I- F- F- I-- F- F- F- I- I- F- F- F- F- F- NTERURBAN AVE Apt 53 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 54 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 55 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 56 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 57 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 58 O ,--1 N M Tr l0 N 00 a) 00 C)) lD l0 lD lD l0 lD CO VD l0 l0 N n n N n n n N s s 4-, +-, ++ 4- I ++ ++ F, ++ F+ ++ +-, C. C. J1 Cl Q Q. Q Cl Q. Ci Q Cl Q Cl Q Cl a. Cl C1 0- a a a a a a a a a< a a a a a a a a a a W W LU W W W W W W LLJ W W W W W W W W W W > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a CO CO CO CD CO m CO CCI m al CO m m m m m CD m m m CC Cc cc cc Cc cc cc a: Cr z cc cc D0000 00 '0 00 CC C_ CC CC cc K c C: CC CC CC K CC cc W W W W W W LU W W LLJ W W W W W W W W W W F- 1- 1- 1- 1- F- 1- 1- F- 1-- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- 1- F- Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ix) N N I- 1. s r- s s s s s s s r• N N N orn rn rn rn of 01 c rn rn orn rn or) rn o o, o, o, orn rn orn or) o) Q, o, 0 rn of a) o, o, a) rn rn 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 Cr Cr cr Cr Cr cr Cr Crcr cr Cr Cr v ct d• v v v v v r-I r-J e-i 1-1 r- CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC: CC CC CC CC K CC CC CC CC CC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LU W W W W W W W W W W CO CO CO CO CO CD CO CO CO CO m m CO 00 CO CC) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 m m W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LLl W W W W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 ZZZZZZZZZZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u u u u u u u u u o u u u u L u u u u U u u u u u g g a a a g g J J J > a 5 5 a a a5 a aJ g 5 a a a Y Y Y 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- D 1- 1- 1- H 1- F- 1- 1- 1- 1- I- F- F- I- F- F- I- F- I- F- F- I- I- F- F- F- F- F- I- I- CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 03 CO l0 LC) lD lD lD LO LC) LO l0 LO 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO Ol 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CO CO CO 00 LO LC) LO LO v 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 LCi ri CO 01 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO 00 CO lD LO LC) LO LO LO LC) LC) LO lD LD LO LC) LO 00 00 00 CO ci rl r1 1--1 I-1 r1 rl r-1 rl r1 rF -1 rl ei rl r1 rl rl 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 CT) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 m 01 Ol O1 01 O1 01 01 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a: a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J a; a a a a a a a a a a a a g a g a g a H c� H H H I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- FI- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- H H H H H H H H 1- 0) a NTERURBAN AVE Apt 80 rl 00 iZ a W a z a m cc W H z N 00 Q a W a a CO CC CC W 1- NTERURBAN AVE Apt 83 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 84 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 85 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 86 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 87 0 rl N M I f1 l0 N 00 00 Ol O O O O O O O O O O r1 N M .zr Ln 00 00 Ol rl rl ri rl rl r1 e-I r1 CL CL CLl 01 01 O1 CT) 01 4Z+ iZ i�' 4C, SZY L 4L Z? a-L CZC aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa W W > > a a z z a a m CO CC CC cc CC W W H H z z W a z a m cC 0_ W H z W a z a on cC cC W H z W a z a m cC 0= W z W a z a m cC 0: W H z LLI > a: z. CC lr. W z W a z a m cC 111 H z W a z a m cC cC W H z a z a m cC cC W H z W a z a m cc cc z W a z a m C: cC W H z W a z a on cC W H z W a z a m cc W H z a z a on cC cC W H z W a z a m cC cC W 1- 2 a z a m cc 0 cc W H z NTERURBAN AVE Apt 96 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 97 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 98 NTERURBAN AVE Apt 99 O1 01 00 ri (7) O1 O1 01 00 00 a --▪ I rl O1 Q1 00 qr rl 01 O1 00 rl 01 Q1 00 ri O1 Ql 00 rl 01 Ol 00 rl 01 O1 co O1 O1 00 -• rl 01 01 00 ci t--I O Ol rl rl O 01 rl rl O Ol -• a --I rl 0 01 rl rl 0 01 qr rl O rl CC C= CC C= CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W CO m CO CO CC CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m CO m CO m rl 0 01 rl O 01 rl rl O T-1 rl O Ol rl O 01 rl rl O 01 rl ri O O1 r1 �-i r1 O O1 a-i t-i O 01 rl rl 0 Cr) rl rl O 01 c-I rl O 01 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 1 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 10 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 11 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 12 CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CL CC CC CC CC CC CL CC CC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W CO CC m m m CO m m CO m CO CO m CO m CO G G G G G G G G G G G C G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G C W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 222222222222222222222222222222222 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrritrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ZZZZZZ 000000 222222 222222 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U ZZZZZZZ 00000000000000 2222222 2222222 U U U U U U U ggggggagaagag ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 2222222222222 2222222222222 0000000000000 U U U U U U U U U U U U U a J a a a a g a a a a a ZZZZZZZ 000000000000000 2222222 2222222 U U U U U O JJJJJJJ EY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y c H H H H H H H H H I- I- I- H F- I- H H F- H H I- H H H H H F- I- f- F- {- F- 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 CO ri ri ri ri 4-1 e-1 .--I e-1 L -1 CO CO CO 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO 00. CO rn rn rn rn c rn O CO rn m rn rn rn rn rn o) rn am am am rn am C rn rn rn rn rn Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a: Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a g g g g g 5 J 5 g g g g g g a g J 5 4 g J g g a 4 4 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOODDDDDODO I- I- I- I- I- F- I- F- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- F- F- I- I- I- I- I- I- F- I- F- I- I- 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 13 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 14 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 15 LO 00 01 r-1 e-I 4-, ++ F+ 4-, 1? 1? O. O. a < a a N V) V) V) W W W W a a < a _ _ _ _ I- I- I- I- � � Ln 0000 0000 Ln Ln 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 2 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 20 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 21 N M N Q Q a < V) V) LLI >> a < E- 0 0 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 24 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 25 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 26 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 27 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 28 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 29 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 3 O N M M M V) to N 11 Q Q 1? Q 0. < < a a < a < V) V) V) V) V) V V) w W UJ W LLJ W W < < < < < < a _ _ _ _ _ 1- F- I- I- I- I- I- Ln L 0000000 0000000 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln r1 ri 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 8 15100 65TH AVE S Apt 9 CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CL CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W CD CO m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m G C G G G G G G G G C G G G G G G G G G C G G G G G G G W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z z DDDDDDDnDDDDDDDDDDDDODDDDDDO 0000000000000000000000000000 U U U U u U U U U U U U U U c) O D U U U U U c.0 U U u U U a g a a g a g g g a a a g a a a a a a g g a a a a a a a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y _ D D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D _ _ D D _ DDDD 1- 1- I- 1- I- I- I- I- I- 1- I- 1- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- F- F- F- F- AbLNLY LABELS ( ,c /v/(r ( ) City Clerk Office — Christy O'Flaherty PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS NEED TO GO TO CHRISTY () Section 1 )BDERAL AGENCIES fUS Corps of Engineers KUS Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) Federal Transit Ad Region 10 National Marine Fisheries Service Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 2 WAS NGTON STATE AGENCIES Div. Office of Archaeo () Dept of Social & Health Services ( ) Transportation Depart t (WSDOT NW) Kbept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Dept of Natural Resources SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Office of the Governor Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) Office of Attorney General �WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Offi ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( )KC Wastewater Treatment Div () KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning KC Dept of Parks & Recreation �N C Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Assessor's Office I 'KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Foster Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Renton Library ( ) Highline School District ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Seattle Library ( ) Renton School District Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) Century Link ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Waste Management ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Cascade Water Alliance ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Comcast ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist Section 6 CITY AGENCIES ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Kent Planning Dept / ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire \ enton Planning Dept S Ai 61 l� ( ) Police ( ) Finance ' City of SeaTac j C, ( ) Planning ( ) Building ity of Burien ( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor ( ) City of Seattle ( ) City Clerk (PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS) ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects -. f ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resources.`4 Fisheries Program '' Wildlife Program` Duwamish Indian Tribe * Tukwila Historical Society** Section OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ashington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound * ( ) uturewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ** send notices for all Tukwila projects which require public notice — via email to tukwilahistsociety(altukwilahistory.orq and rcwieser comcast.net ( ) Seattle Times ( ) South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( ) City of Tukwila Website SEPA MAILINGS (comment period starts on date of mailing) Notice of Application mailed to: Department of Ecology (send checklist with Notice of Application), applicant, other agencies as necessary, property owners and tenants within 500 feet. It is also posted on site. KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand. Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice of Application SEPA Determination mailed to 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 at the time of SEPA determination: SEPA Determination Staff report 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 for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to applicant, property owners and residents within 500 feet of subject property, agencies with jurisdiction. Comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a 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. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the notice of decision and staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Decision (Signed by Director) 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 (Signed by Director) 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) PLANTING QUANTITY TAB SYMBOL ITEM QUANTITY STREAM PLANTING BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA M1 M2 TREES - SPACE 12. 0.C. 14NE MAPLE 7 2 BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 0 PAPER BIRCH 4 1 SITKA SPRUCE 4 1 DOUGLAS FIR 7 2 PACIFIC WILLOW 11 3 SI IKA WILLOW 11 3 WESI ERN RED CEDAR 7 2 SHRUBS - SPACE 4' O C. BEAKED HAZELNUT 25 7 BLACK HAWTHORN 25 7 OCEANSPRAY 25 7 •" INDIAN PLUM 50 13 CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 25 7 NOOTKA ROSE 76 13 THIMBLEBERRY 76 20 COMMON SNOWBERRY /6 20 STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT M3 PLANTING AREA 38,000 SF TREES - SPACE 12' 0.C. BIG LEAF MAPLE 61 SITKA SPRUCE 15 BLACK COTTONWOOD 46 DOUGLAS FIR 91 . WEST ERN RED CEDAR 15 SHRUBS - SPACE 4' 0 C. NNE MAPLE 213 BEAKED HAZELNUT 107 BLACK HAWTHORN 107 OCEAN SPRAY 10/ INDIAN PLUM 213 NOOTKA ROSE 320 THIMBLEBERRY 213 COMMON SNOWBERRY 320 SCREENING PLANTING AREA 6,78815E TREES - SPACE 12. 0.C. 81C LEAF MAPLE 11 —SAHA SPRUCE 5 BLACK COTTONWOOD 0 DOUGLAS FIR 16 WESTERN RED CEDAR 16 SHRUBS - SPACE 4' 0 C. NNE MAPLE 38 BEAKED HAZELNUT 0 BLACK HAWTHORN 0 OCEAN SPRAY 38 INDIAN PLUM 19 NOOTKA ROSE 133 THIMBLEBERRY 0 COMMON SNOWBERRY 114 et AcK RrvER BUFFER VEGETATION CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA BVC1 (21,330 SF) MITIGATION SITE M2 (1,670 SF) PLANTING QUANTITY TAB SYMBOLI ITEM QUANTITY BUFFER VEGETATION BBVyCC1 CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA 21,330 SF TREES - SPACE 12' 0.C. VINE MAPLE 17 BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 PAPER BIRCH 9 SITKA SPRUCE 9 DOUGLAS FOR 17 PACIFIC WILLOW 26 SO KA WILLOW 26 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1/ SHRUBS - SPACE 4' 0 C. BEAKED HAZELNUT 60 BLACK HAWTHORN 60 OCEANSPRAY 60 INDIAN PLUM 120 CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 60 NOOTKA ROSE 180 THIMBLEBERRY 180 COMMON SNOWBERRY 180 BUFFER VEGETATION BVC2 CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA 21,411 SF TREES - SPACE 12 0.C. VINE MAPLE 17 BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 PAPER BIRCH 9 SITKA SPRUCE 26 DOUGLAS FIR 17 PACIFIC WILLOW 34 SR KA WILLOW 34 WESI ERN RED CEDAR 1/ SHRUBS - SPACE 4' 0 C. BEAKED HAZELNUT 60 BLACK HAWTHORN 60 OCEANSPRAY 60 INDIAN PLUM 120 CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 60 NOOTKA ROSE 180 THIMBLEBERRY 180 COMMON SNOWBERRY 180 LEGEND: WETLAND/STREAM BUFFER W w WETLAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERLINE • DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE MITIGATION SITE M1 • PLAN (9,098 SF) \`\ . .-- j-4 f Ir. /' rn i '"-L`',,to WETLAND 6co 10 SCALE IN FEET 0 60' 120' ti- WETLAND 5 N BUFFER VEGETATION CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA BVC2 (21,411 SF) 4 _______„______ .. .4zIt3_ ,7\ „_,__. _ __,___/_s_E _____1__ __: -,.. /,- mod-=_s-4.—,_._._._..___— ....----..-,2 . .._...a,... _ter ,-_ _t- 7.-7=,,..,L,L—M_C,,,. _F" _ J[- \\ % / \\ r1 i\\\ / / ( / W1 anmaxaN 8 \ i /\ ,' \,,\ten,/ Y WETLAND BR yL .ew, ,uu. SCREENING PLANTING SP7 (6,788 SF) WETLAND 7 MITIGATION SITE M3 (38,600 SF) I \j / / 1\ j Y 1\ y\ ✓�, / ... DESIRABLE \\ — ?/l VEGETA11ON EDGE \ /—neTL.wD BUFFER _.( / 4 �\ STREAM BUTTER L. NO FARM w. CrCITY WON 444 • • \\ / / Parametrix DATE: A8NI 16, 2015 FILE: LANDSCAPING Landscaping Plan Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Cash Register Receipt. City of Tukwila ProjectTRAK Receipt Number $6,450.95 L16-0016 Address: NOTICE MAILING pn: 232304900,1 $6,450.95 GENERATE LABELS R000.341.700.00.01 0.00 $467.00 SHORELINE $5,699.00 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT R000.322.100.00.00 0.00 $5,699.00 TECHNOLOGY FEE TECHNOLOGY FEE R000.322.900.04.00 0.00 $284.95'' $284.95 TOTAL FEES PAID BY RECEIPT: R7977 $6,450.95 GL 301.98.594.760.49.00 PA 91130101.1000.107 Date Paid: Monday, March 21, 2016 Paid By: TUKWILA CITY OF Pay Method: CITY ACCOUNT 0 84.49»__ S88^29' 47•"E 0 0 RACT 322 I ��' 5 j6212oo#s 0330 ‘1` 59106 SF 1.36 AC °4„ 9003 e,. 82.69 N88^02'07"E 9 .661 _9 1p8;95+/ 192 .86 O1' 0.�." tip'' b ti N ti 142a04 '45508#s 19008 f ti ao \ 0 \ POR. \ 2323040 \ 9003 \ .� \‘,\ 2 \ 127200#s 0120 ....._ORD 1928 AMENDING 0 TRACT 31 N d. 'y 92042919t6 ;300 ,,11' '--- 08 9a M 9810# 0 621200#s 25 TRACT 30 RD BRIDGE S_URY Y . 11808#s £• 9080 4 RENTON 0 LUA-98-148-LLA MOt 513 .N\ ' (Ns, .. • ..,-, .• • ,z.,,;, ; / \. -3 • • . • / \ \‘\ y , Ai 5 BONAri /r, •• 2/ N N ‘ • / N.1 ..e. / , • • ammasam el/V ------, ,2 \\ . ,--• ,g, ,-, -rd - -\ - ------- .-7N — N , -- : / \,...._......„____—••••- I .0' { '•,, 1 ----7--. ... N>. N.. , . \tA 'N. . , . • .., N ''.,,.4 • N./'•'' --. .,„ -'.......* .•,,,- ,..1 \______,. , 'k ,• , Ns,. 1,......;„ , N. s‘ • ,I,' ., \ \ .\N . .. • .k.:: •t,,, ,:. ar, ----- .• , ' \ • . , , \ -ref cc.•;• ? • --t \________ \- . - / '-••••:- 7 IJ annexation 0 -P v effective eH 0 U 0 U C0 a) ORDAINED by Now, therefore, as follows: CO H .0 c1) -i-' •r-1 R; 0" H cG r 4 U 0 0 4-1 CH +3 0 a) the provisions That pursuant •• Laws of the State of Washington H 0 •r--1 0 V) rC3 44 1--1 CO 0 irs cd 0 • CO 1 •rl `3 •H .4 0 E-1 4a 0 .4 H ezi 0 4-i +' 0 contiguous .• 4-1 •r-1 0 0 E • a-' S •r-t a) 0 cd co a) 0 rn tar 0 4-i 0 •r-I .0 O . -P •rl F-1 0 cH tr\ .rr--1 • 0 -P•0 r--1 F- (\J 0 .C::i CH CID H C 1 O cd td a) tap �, 0 a) 0 4-3 0 H V ro •H.. j- C• hi) tt1) F-1 t�1) •H ; .-zl- � tap s~ • - 4-1 0 txe Cd a) • m a) F-1 CD0 4-i s; ••` cn •H a) Q 01 0 -��+, 0.4 a) F9-1 -4-4 O �`';Hr-I-1-1 0 OOa r-1 •` a) •ri -I-7 -P 0 • r-1 0 ' tH •• • co F-1 0 -I-1 rC, •r-1 W f " F-4 r--I rc, 0 • rn Z 4-1 a) o a) tap -+' 0 0 0 4- 4 0 • 4-r) , a) 0 cd •ri •H C, O cd Q C\I 0 rn 0 +' F-, •r-1 (Y'i a) 1-1 C\ J 1.0 N CH t 3 Cd CO • 0 F-1 ^ r7:3 •ri ▪ 1-1 CO -P O -t-' r-I pa a) O F-1 Cd r-I F-I r-1 O • Cd 4a 0 •rl ,-I .Q CO W a) cd cV CH sue. rO a) 0 -r--I '? F-1 40 •` F-1 • a) '3 c o .X a) • rc) +a •rI ..L.' 0 , 0 cd cf) to cd C\1 •r-i E P4 +) 0 •rl 0 p ; -I-) a) CtS o •`.� w cd en F-1 rrl U) 4-i .Z rC3 0 4--, 4-3 r Fa 1 r-1 te0 F 4 M.0 4- cd u) 0 4-i tap 0 0 0 . rq 1 .4 cd 0 a) a) •rl 1-3 O 0 I 0 +3 0 u) a) - 0 . 4-1 44 4-i r-i F-1 (I) -+- -P O 'z3 4' 4-3 .Li 0 i > al •H ON F-4 to cd -0 1-1 u) .b..0 C- •ri -p V 0 • F-i i� 0 0 \o C1) (1) •r1 I -I-' to F-1 r-.1 -p •r-I H 0 0. a) r0 Z F-1 an 1 cd a) r-I -1'-' C\J F-1 a) EN- cd • .r.1 u) cd 0 cv ;o 27, to rd CH o 0 P- • +' 0 •� FF-1 H .1Y�.r 0 ` �- a) 0 ,Oa) rca �- 0 r O L O 34 cd 'a O F-4 .4 0 -P .1-1 ..0 %:, cd U) E-1 r0 0 r-I Pt +J .H Cs- F-t F-1 rd 0 • z •+-1 F-4 ..0 •P cd to -P a) w cd r-I O ai 0 0 F-1 0 > •1--1 -11c11 0 0 u) O a) •r-1 r-I r . 44 O P., -P 0 cd F-t F-t .4 F-1 25 .. •rl •rl -+a •r-I O •1-1 -1-3 O a) cd r-1 W u) cd CV co 0 cd cd 4-) (Y) R, R F-i 0 r"I cd 0 +) co .0 a) cd -P (Id -ice O C.).4 0 F-1 a) -P r-I u) F-1 Z 0 a) a) F-i a) F-+ • Cv cd 0 rr •H r r0 -I-' .- a) F-r ' cd Pi a) •r-1 I2 a) -+) a) a) -r-♦ F-4 .� • (I) , 0 ; _ co } ri)cd H O 0 E u\ F-i co a) a) O 4.4 O i Sr U rc +P r--1 -44-1 0 F-100a)•cdcda)-0+7 a)0a) c) .~ 1 u) a) # -P o Imo, •ri 0 -P u)D O •H H CH cd u cd 3 4-4 .ia F-1 -P F-I o r-1 4"100 -P u) -P co U +) o +) O U r-1 U c -1 r o cd to cv O a • . 4-1 p ; ) o O s✓ q O cd �1 -N U -1-' '>; 0 0 o U ro 0 0 4-)!a 0 0 0 cd .� c.) ra a) _� rn cv a) E 1 cd 0 LN- •r 1 4-1 C\I 0 • 0 r--1 •0 \O V) t104-i en •r-I •r-1 0 0 0) ?.+ rt3 •1".1 cd •r-1 b.0 • F-1 rd F-+ try E"1 to Cd Q) +7Or-ia) +3H�� cd cd a) +, au -PCO V to to a) a) , s~ •r-i fc) . t -P0 >“-4 4-t s +� C11 u) •r-1 4-I •rl 0 4-1 F-i ? •r-I -ice a) C V •1-1 cd -P tit) 0 .0 4-4 O •r-1 cd r-1 .4 0 0 .4 0 0 ,Q 0 +3 ' u) +3 • O O 1� u] Cd 4-' rn -i- N •r-I S✓` to 0 •r-i -P ; i cd P, 1-1 cd -0 .0 � cd F-i Fa O a) 4-4 0 m •r-1 0 a) 40 -I-a 40.4-) a) 0 F-1 0 •ri -P tl) 0 ..0 .0 E cl) H E-1 0 CD0 ±u �` •r1 •r I M 4-1 a) • -N •r-I •r-I •r-i !~ q 0 CO •ri p ; 0 O a) U a) rc -PF- a cd ^ r-1 •r1 r--1 0 O -P a) • rc5 a) 4-I •H .� 4a a) .� - 1--4a) cd �: 3 a) . 0 • C/ cd aO 0 +P 1-1 F-1 r-1 O 0 -P cn 0 • 0 to •rl •ri -P 0 N F-+ +� E Q) Cd F-1 4-1 •r-1 4-1 0 p[ z3 i •r 1 tap •r i �` -Pa) cd .�' a) E • +' - 0 Cr 4H oil0 0 4-1 0 J: +7 4-1 a) -P0 -P Cr 0 a) F-1 H o o .0 0 •ri •r1 a) 0 0 F-4 4-) u) CV .t 0 • -lat r-1 F-+ to 4-) H c) -I--' 0 a) -tom Ci • 4-1 4 P^ W 1 Fa •r-I z cd td 0 0 E tr) t .o N a) cd ± r-1 cp a) -P CD a a) .0 cd rr) .s 3 \O .� a) -P Fi rn N 3 a) r--1 0 0•rl F-1 '� F-1 • F-i •r1 LS1 -CO • .4 cd 0 a) 0 F-4 F-I FI 4-4 0 ct3 -P 0 .4 0 0 cd (4 +3 El c.) q R. a) a) o u) ua to r� +3 Z pC, •r1 CV �• Cd u) rn . 0 U ;~ F-i-_?; sv F-I 0 = 0 ,t r-1 be F-i a) 4-' co 0 cd +) a) a) 0 a) a) 0 F-1 9-1 F-1 0 O .4 4- --t c e=0 O co F-1 a) .0 V) -ice 0 -ate .. -ice r-J a) r7 R: Cd a) •1-1 0 +P O CO cd 3 • , 1 U .Z +) a) o +-1 u) pi - u) +3 0 pi F-1 • 3 -1- CH cd 4.) •r-1 H 0 0 ,-1 cd a) •H C` u) 0 cd a) 0 a) 4-1 rn o F-1 an 0 cH ..Z a) +-3 r--1 CV F-t 4-, cd 4-1 it) .0 re-) 4-1 O cd ? 0 � +, 8 I ._0 rA 0 0 0 a) +- -ice •r-I 0 E-1 0 1 r •H -1dr 0 Cd • cd ti,_t ci-i 4 0 rri r"I WI 4) - 0 0 4-1 F-1 a) cd C� re, F-+ o o O •r-I -I-) -0 = 4-1 •H \O a) • y \0 0 • 0 .0 cd a) F-t U rQ +3 Cti i-�-• .. tapO O 0 r0 .Z 0 C\I ,.s� +? co p.� ;~ 0 to cd ,,d' ar •rl r0 0 +' Z F-1 a) [al F-i cH F-r 0 Cr) 0 •ri F-1 - O 4-1 O .. 0 . - a) 0 0 a) • 0 O H u) ^ F-+ N- O 0 .J 0 ra • +' _ +3 .Z U f4 U a) ON VI a) 4-10 . CV •ri •H cd ;" •r-1 0 F-i CO +3 c". .0 a) r--I 4-1 0 \O r-. r--10 r-1 0 CO 0 • r0 r-1 ref a) tap `LS .0 o • +a • +3 F-1 ,�" r-I F-4 --± •rl -N lr '1 S✓ P-,�` 0 •r1 tzc.S�-+ 1- r-1 0 u)pia) 4-, pi a) C •- , tap tIc 0 • cd C>- 0 cd +7 cd •r•i +' F i an a) 0 P4 C • a) +3 H F-1 0 •r-1 a) r=1 cd (NI k p 0) F-1 r.) a) ✓ O tap Cr) +' u2 • k cd .H 0 +-' 11- ,3 0 a u) b.0 •rl +-1 -1-4 -P .0 a) F-4 •H cn a) CO a) 0 R, cd r--1 .1- • u) •• P cd u) V O +3 Fi Imo: F-I to Cd -i- 0 -1-' 4-i rC3 Z a) r-1 • -1 u) Q) rta r-I F-i 0 F-1 a) .- a) u) 'z •r-1 cd tl) • 0 0 F-1 r-1 -P F-i ','S' 3 O F-1 `r�� cd �` -' O a) H -P (40 • 0 r0 F-1 a) 0 4 i 4 0 k 0 a) ra CO +3 F-1 0 3 F-4 O •ri -i-, ;- 4-1 cV F-1 a) 4-a •H 0 -ia to cd .p k ro F-1 0 a) ..0lC.+,Cd .C40u)�a0000 0cad 40 -P.00 � -I-� -+� U cd F-1 u) +3 rO Z a) •H FA 1Z •ri 0 F-1 0 F-4 >:.. 4-t p u) U 0 O Cd a) a) s'+ tO (4 cd .0 F-r Pi.. i U cd F-1 `rya cd •r-I rc:3 • tar; • rn 0 +3 r0 a) a) -13 bpir1 r--1 a) .4 •r1 -1' 0 • .0 0 cH O Cl':) 4-1 rya 34 0 E r0 0 •` 0 .0 0 F-1 0 C\I k -- cd •ri a) -N co a) 0 r--1 F-1 0 Z 0 -ice Fi a) O H cd +P u) -0 0 .0 F-i ..0 O CO • Fa .0 • O +a O v) Lit 0 O P: r-1 O F-1 4-2 +a 0 -P O -P O P4rikr W 0 1-4 E 0 4-i r0 0 0 0 cd 'b ) 4-1 •rr •ri 0 r--I 4-i ,a r i 3 •H 0 rC3 a) • +' F4 -P rcl 0 •r1 0 -P tar O H Z cra .- a) _Th eH cd .s~ O rc:3 R1 • F-i •rI 0 0 O a) a) a) cd iZ rH to •1-1 a) cd a) >✓ . .Z 0 O .Z (1) r• 0 a) 1--1 F-1 rn Cd F-1 P, u) - 0 +3 0 r-1 -P •r•1 •rl 0 )•S1 •r-I .- -+3 U 00 • zs a) a) c1) a) : o +P cc) •r-I 0 cd a 14 •r-1 r-1 -P 0 4-1 a) • fS 0 cd -i-' r-1 3 0 F-1 cH +' O • 0 1 F-1 •r-1 O CO C` 0 u) a) rr1 Qa O 0 -i•' U to -1-'' u) 0 0 0 0 r-(O 0 \.0 • fizi k a) F-1 +' F-1 - O (d a) c1Z ci) 0 0 0 F-r P F-, 4-1 (1) 3 0 F-I rEl C` F-1 F-1 u] 0 O -P •r1 •r-I Cd •r-I a) a) 0 -p a) i a) CV a) a) 413.0 F_I 0 .4 r--1 0 rn m -ice -P r0 Cd 0 rd cd -N +) to P r-1 0 -N a) 0 -P •r-1 u) u) 0 u) 4-1 F-I' ' = •r-1 0 cd F-1 F-I 0 F I0 a) F-1 •rl 0 +' a) F4 O •r-1 •ri 4-1 a) cd Cd o O O as O +a O O F-I Cd .-' F-1 0 a) 0 0 > rt.) O firM M 0r. a) u)-P 0tOcr)u)H (1) 0 Q,0N-C1 U,QCIa•rl••4r-J a) +) Q) o Q1 F-1 -!-) a) 0 •H Q) , H •v' 4 Q) H to F-1 Q) • 4-2 (1) CD 4-1 Ct-I Q) •rl a) 'J O •ri 0 -I- r-1 0 Faa F-+ cdr O O .r a) C- • 'Z� N •r--1 a) •r-I +' CL� +� Cd F-I L r--1 Q) co •r-� Cn bA .. Q) +22+' F-1 OJ a)) r. E-4 P r H O C1--I al cH O O ci 1 ro -F-' r- I LC \ Cd cd +2 F-+ r-1 a) a) •ri • rO a) N F-+ Fa E tali • +� -P .� •r-I Cd C) • CA -1-2 a 4-1 CO a) VI Q) Q) +) cr) .S i tea' •r-I -P -1-' aJ tiO • U Ca a) O O\CH tie a)era r a) cr) -P rCI H CD-O •1-1 • Cd cd Lu' cd 40 O w +' 1-1 F-1 •ri �' 0 •H £ cd a) •r-I b4 +2 a) rQ O p, O 0 •1-1 F-I F-1 a) n-1 F-1 (2) O co a) .S Cd a) 0 -1-1 O cd 0 O r1 r--I •rl + Q •ri H F� U) v) a) rN a) a) O c+-; ci 4 a) O 0 F-1 ; i 0 0 0 tl)q 0 to the Town of be and the same hereby H ci3 rn rO 0 n effective a) eta rH-i cd .S� ordinances cd C!) H a) H . CZ O a) 0 Ri ro n a) +-, cd. ordinance shall Q) a) tf) ro n cd C0 4-2 fi4 • a) � -1-, Cd G-I H i cd cd rc r j a) rO rc O •ri F-1 CH 0 CV U) fa, cd N • cd H effect five publication of September, PASSED this rrq 0 - o If\ 0" H of September, APPROVED Approved as ,o . 0 st, LiJ Z(I) DLLJ 0 (1) Cl) V-% M) rf) • GS r cn u 0 '0 (v) rn C71 • CD 0, o •v% • T: 44' L'60E L • 60E7 5 23 o \11 • — 01 • • N c'n in4 01 C. 0 0040 7,k„?•••,- a?. ,••••• 0 cc, < `-•,,Q .., I, ..., rs, r\I Lr) , 0 0 0 ,,• • 0 c •k • • , a V---• 1 • ? • 1r0;00"" too` ?rs • • 30° LE.6i,ET ee'6ZEI CITY OF TUKWILA 0042.010.009 JEH/ko 12/01/86 01/06/87 WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 1029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA FROM THE CITY OF RENTON. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2651 of the City of Renton requested that the City of Tukwila annex certain real property located in the City of Renton as part of a common effort by Renton and Tukwila to simplify their common boundaries, and WHEREAS, Resolution 1008 of the City of Tukwila declared the City of Tukwila's willingness to accept such annexation upon certain conditions and requested that the City of Renton annex certain property located within the City of Tukwila as a reciprocal measure designed to simplify the common boundary, and WHEREAS, the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila entered into an interlocal agreement providing for shared responsibilities with respect to the areas to be annexed by both cities, and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board has reviewed the proposed annexations and boundary change and has approved the same, and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.10.217 and upon proper notice, a public hearing was held on the proposed annexation before the City Council of the City of Tukwila on January 5, 1987, at which all persons who were interested in the annexation were allowed to participate, and WHEREAS, after such public hearing, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has determined to annex the area, now, therefore THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Annexation of Area from Renton. Pursuant to RCW 35.10.217, the real property previously located in the City of Renton and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, should be and hereby is annexed to and made a part of the City of Tukwila Section 2 Duties of City Clerk The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Renton City Council and the King County Council 45- ) -'n"` DCD-- '41 Cc, ( cu,.t C1 Section 3 Effective Date This resolution, and the a 4Cnl1k/ annexation accomplished hereby, shall take effect and be in full force at 12 01 a m on February 4, 1987; thirty (30) days after adoption, unless the owners of property in the area annexed by this resolution, equal in value to 60% or more of the assessed valuation of the property in the area, file a written protest with the Tukwila City Council of the City of Tukwila prior to the effective date PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, this 5th day of January, 1987 APPROVED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED CITY CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM OFFICE OF THE CITY TORNEY BY dove deh FILED WITH PASSED BY T RESOLUTION N CLER COUN H DUFFIE.P "$UNCIL PRESIDENT -/ �6 IL /- S - '7 EXHIBIT A Lands to be Annexed to Tukwila from Renton The lands proposed to be annexed to the City of Tukwila from the City of Renton are listed below and shown in Figure 1 SECTION -TOWNSHIP -RANGE PARCEL ACREAGE 3 62 NW 1/4 of Sec 24, Twn 23, Rge 4 27 (portion) - SW 1/4 of Sec 24, Twn 23, Rge 4 63 2 35 32 0 27 28 3 85 7 MDC 4 55 NW 1/4 of Sec 25, Twn 23, Rge. 4 38 1 84 0 91 8 MOC (p) 1 14 9 MDC (p) 3 05 43 2 15 50 0 84 51 0.72 23 2 16 6 6 70 2 16 24 (portion) 44.10 21 MDC 2 45 2 16 22 (portion) ITTT- SW 1/4 of Sec 25, Twn. 23, Rge. 4 21 1 61 59 0 37 20 2 14 33 3 69 17 5 93 3 01 23 (portion) NTT- 24 (portion) 5 44 44.10 22 3 01 NW 1/4 of Sec 36, Twn. 23, Rge 4 97 3 00 57 8.69 62 6 40 61 0.17 11 6 83 43 0 10 37 0 17 38 0 14 39 0 14 53 0 14 14 0.12 13 0 12 29 0 32 10 0 14 9 0 19 59 0 15 8 0 17 17 012 35 2 84 34 5 54 36 3 09 TOTAL 45 parcels 101 65 EXHIBIT ORDINANCE NO 4040 Renton -Tukwila Boundary Adjustment Nao of Affected Areas lands to Renton :eC Lands to Tukwila Lands to Renton Lands to Tukwila .e: 3011111 usED Arrr+cp+Mta,T F SUGGESTED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (From City of Renton to City of Tukwila - North Part) A11 that portion of the City of Renton as annexed by City Ordinance No. 1764 lying westerly of the east margin of BURR Company (N.P. Ry) main track right of way all being located in the S} of the NW} of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. Together with all that portion of Ordinance No. 1764 lying westerly main track right of way all being 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. Together with all that portion of Ordinance No. 1764 lying westerly main track right of way all being 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. King 9/16/86:JRB the City of Renton of the east margin located in the SW} the City of Renton of the east margin located in the NW} County, Washington oK- as annexed by City of BURR Company (M.P. Ry) of Section 24, Township as annexed by City of BURR Company (M.P. Ry) of Section 25, Township LANDS TO TUKWILA ("SOUTHERN That portion of Section 25 and 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, M.M., King County, Washington more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of the Plat of Burlington Itl Northern Industrial Park Renton II as recorded In volume III of Plats, pages 4 44, Records of King County, Washington and the South line of Government Lot 6 situate in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Thence West along said South line, said line else being the existing limits of the City of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 1764 (amended by Ordinance No. 1928) to the Westerly bank of the Green River (white River); Thence Southerly along said Westerly bank and existing said City limits t the North line of the Northwest 1/4 0f Section 36; Thence continuing Southerly along said Westerly bank and said city limit' to the Westerly extsntion of the North boundary line of the Henry Adams Donation Claim No. 43; Thence East along said North boundary line and its westerly extension ant said city limits to the centerline of Secondary State Highway Number SM; Thence South along slid centerline and said city limits to the westerly extension of a line lying parallel with and 30.0 feet Southerly of the centerline of S.W. 43rd Street (South 150th'); Thence East along said Southerly line and its westerly extension and saic city limits to an intersection with the Southerly extention of the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of the Burlington Northern Railroad (former Northern Pacific Railway); Thence North along said Easterly line and its southerly extension to an intersection with the South line of the Southwest 1/4. of Section 23; Thence continuing North along said East line to its intersection with thi South line of Government Lot 6 and the True Paint of Beginning. Page 1 of 1 l r} 4 .v-.�1 91R" ;a CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /S /S AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING - TON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1503 TO CORRECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City Council that Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1503, passed February 21. 1989, contained an incorrect legal descrip- tion, and WHEREAS. it is necessary to correct such legal description to complete the annexation of the full area approved by the Boundary Review Board and approved by vote of the residents, and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the public peace and safety that the correct boundaries be established within the jurisdiction of the City as soon as possible: vq NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA. OD WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Ordinance No. 1503 of the City of Tukwila, Washing- Cin ton, is hereby amended by replacing Exhibit A to said Ordinance with Exhibit A to this Ordinance which by this reference is incorporated herein in full. Section 2. Ratification. In all other respects, Ordinance No. 1503 shall remain in full force and effect andis ratified[ hereby. Section 3. Effective Date - Declaration of Emergency. A public emergency is hereby declared for the protection of the public safety and peace and this Ordinance shall be effective immediately. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING - TON, this A V day of M4l 1989. a L. Van Dusen, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: M n Anderson, City Clerk AP OVED AS CITY FICE OF RNEY FILED WITH THE Ur / CLERK: 5 - 8 - 8 7 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:.,5 - 8 - 27 PUBLISHED: S- /5/- e EFFECTIVE DATE: am w f d t o, t r ORDINANCE NO. /S/S F:9/n /31 #0796 D RECD F 8.rn RECFEE 2.00 CHSHSL ***I0.Cin • co v; co 8907310796 September 15, 1988 Revision LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF TUKWILA - PROPOSED ANNEXATION (Fire District Al Revised) BEGINNING at the intersection of the East margin of East Marginal Way South with the South line of the North 825.00 feet of the J. Buckley D.C.N42 in Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Northwesterly along said East margin to the North line of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along said North line which is also the Seattle City Limit Line S 89°17'40° E 868.00 feet more or less, to the centerline of the filled riverbed of the Duwamish River; Thence following Southerly and Easterly along this curving centerline of said filled riverbed, which is also the Seattle City Limit Line, a distance of approximately 3,400.00 feet to the North border of the Southeast quarter of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence along said section border which is also the Seattle City Limit Line S 88°32'07" E 1,895.00 feet more or less to the Westerly margin of Airport Way South; Thence Southerly along said Westerly margin of Airport Way South to the East line of said Section 33; Thence Southerly along said East line which is also the Seattle City Limit Line and continuing Southerly along said Seattle City Limit L`ne and the East line of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. to the centerline of South 104th Street; Thence East along said 104th Street which is also the Seattle City Limit Line to the Easterly boundary of Primary State Highway No. 2 (Empire Way south); Thence South along said Easterly boundary and Seattle City Limit Line 620.00 feet more or less to the Northerly margin of South 107th Street (also known as S. Ryan Way); Thence in a Southeasterly direction along said Northerly margin and Seattle City Limit Line to the intersection of the East Line of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., with the North line of South 107th Street, as conveyed to King County, Washington, by deed recorded under King County Auditor's File No. 3444401; Thence North along the East line of said subdivision and Seattle City Limit Line 940.00 feet, more or less to the North line of said subdivision, also known as the North line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 3; Thence East along said North line and Seattle City Limit Line to the West margin of 51st Avenue S.; Thence South along said margin to the centerline of South 112th Street, being on the North line of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence continuing South along said West margin of 51st Avenue South 452 feet more or less, to an intersection with the South line of South 113th Street, sometimes called Avon Street; Thence Westerly on the South line of said street 138.28 feet more or less to the Northwesterly corner of tax lot 334840-1670; thence South 07-00-02 East 288.71 feet; thence North 69-58-16 West to a point 101.13 feet from the West margin of 51st Avenue South when measured along said line; thence South 05-16-46 East to the existing north margin of South 114th Street; thence Easterly along said North margin 50 feet more or less to the existing Seattle City Limit Line; Thence Southerly and Easterly along said Seattle City Limit Line to the East line of said Section 10; Thence South on said East line to a point approximately 2,630.00 feet South of the Northeast corner of Section 10 and on the South margin of EXHIBIT A 8907310796 Legal Description for City Of Tukwila - Proposed Annexation (Fire District #1 Revised) September 15, 1988 Revision Juniper Street, also known as South 120th Street; Thence East along said South margin and its Easterly extension approxi- mately 420 feet to the Southwest margin of Empire Way South (State Road #2); Thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly margin to its intersec- tion with the East Right -of -Way line of SR-5 and the Northwesterly corner of tax lot 0182000195, said point being further defined as lying approximately 310 feet North of the North margin of South 126th Street ( as measured along said East Right -of -Way line of SR-5); Thence Southerly along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line to an intersec- tion with the Northeast margin of Union Pacific Railroad (AKA Oregon -Washington Railroad and Navigation Company); Thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly railroad margin to an intersection with the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 14 '-•23-04; Thence continuing along said Northeasterly railroad margin to an inter- section with the Easterly production of the centerline of Edward Ave. (S. 139th Street) as platted in Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts and vacated under Tukwila Ordinance No. 101; Thence Westerly along said Easterly production to the Southwesterly margin of the Northern Pacific Railway right-of-way, as recorded respec- tively in Volume 830, page 305, Volume 825, page 545, Volume 821, page 263 of Deeds, Records of King County, said line being also on the existing Tukwila City Limit Line; Thence Northwesterly along said margin and Tukwila City Limit Line 2,400.00 feet, more or less, to the West line of the Northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Southerly along said West line and Tukwila City Limit Line 120.00 feet, more or less, to the thread of the Duwamish River; Thence along said thread and Tukwila City Limit Line in a Northwesterly direction to the intersection with the Southeasterly production of the Northeasterly margin of Tract 74, East Riverton Garden Tracts, according to the plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 79, in King County, Washington and City Limit Line of Tukwila as established by City Ordinance 494; Thence Northwesterly along said production and said Northeasterly margin respectively, to an intersection with the Southeasterly margin of 57th Avenue South; Thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly margin to the Southeasterly production of the Northeasterly margin of Tract 51 of said Plat; Thence Northwesterly along said Southeasterly production and said Northeasterly margin to the Southeast margin of 56th Avenue South; Thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly margin to the Southwest margin of South 133rd Street; Thence Southeasterly along the Southwest margin of South 133rd Street and the Southeasterly production thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River and existing Tukwila City Limit Line; Thence downstream along said thread and Tukwila City Limit Line in a general Northwesterly direction to the intersection with the Southeasterly extension of the Southwesterly margin of Richard Street, as platted in Allentown Addition as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 100, Records of King County, Washington; Thence Northwesterly along said Tukwila City Limit Line and Southeasterly extension and said Southwesterly margin 1,050.00 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the Northwesterly line of Lot 32, Block 13, said Allentown Addition; Thence Southwesterly along said Tukwila City Limit Line and Northwesterly line and the Southwesterly extension thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River; Thence Westerly along said thread and Tukwila City Limit Line 2,150.00 feet, more or less, to an angle point in the Tukwila City Limit Line and the East margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southerly along said East margin and city limits 400 feet more or less• to an angle point on the city limits of Tukwila; Thence Northwesterly along said City Limit Line of Tukwila to the West margin of said 42nd Avenue South; Legal Description for City Of Tukwila - Proposed Annexation (Fire District 01 Revised) September 15, 1988 Revision Thence Northerly along said margin to the Westerly line of Puget Sound Electric Railway right-of-way; Thence North along the West line of said right-of-way approximately 1030 feet more or less to a point of intersection with the Easterly exten- sion of the South line of Tract 22, of Riverside Interurban Tracts; as recorded in Vol. 10, page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, Washington; Thence West along said South line and extension to the East margin of the Pacific Highway, also known as East Marginal Way South, said point also being on the Easterly extension of the centerline of South 124th Street; Thence Northerly along said East margin to the Easterly extension of the North margin of said South 124th Street; Thence Westerly along said Easterly extension and said North margin to the East line of Lot 9, Block 4 of said Riverton Addition; as recorded in Vol. 13, page 36 of Plats, Records of King County, Washington; Thence Northerly along said East line and the East line of Lot 16, of said Block 4 and the West line of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930 to the South line of the Westerly portion of Lot 4 of said Short Plat; Thence Westerly along said South line to the Southwest corner of said Westerly portion; Thence Northerly along the West line thereof to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; Thence Easterly along the North line thereof to the Westerly margin of East Marginal Way South; Thence Northerly along said West margin to the South line of the North 1,168.66 feet of Section 10; Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Westerly along said South line to the West line of said Section 10; Thence Northerly along the West line of said Section 10 to the thread of the Duwamish River; Thence Westerly and Northerly along said thread of the Duwamish River, 0, and waterway, to the North line of Section 32, Township 24, Range 4 East, �► W.M., said point being also on the Seattle City Limit Line; C5 Thence Easterly along said North line and the North line of said Section 23 and said Seattle City Limit Line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. WP:(ES)P5 -3- SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1515 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING - TON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1503 TO CORRECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. On May 8, , 1989, the City Council of the City of Tukwila passed Ordinance No. 1515 , which provides as follows: amends Ordinance No. 1503 to correct the legal description of the area annexed, declares an emergency, and provides for an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed without charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text. APPROVED by the City Council at its meeting of May 8 1989. Anderson, City Clerk PUBLISH: Valley Daily News - May 14, 1989 TODAY'S DATE: May 10, 1989 TO: FAX NUMBER: 854-1006 FROM CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 BY: MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk 433-1800 King County Council Gary Grant, Chair Gerald Peterson, Council Administrator Room 402, King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-2500 October 13, 1987 Harry Sanders Department of Elections 553A Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 (r(b•--6.1( RE: CITY OF RENTON - Annex - Container Corporation of America, Ordinance No. 4086 BRB File No. 1438 All necessary documents and required reports are now a matter of record on the above subject, therefore the processing of this proposal is finalized. Accordingly, we are forwarding copies of the necessary documents to the various interested county departments and other agencies. Very truly yours, Gerald A. Peterson Council Administrator BY: "2/k4..,'"' HDM/2853B-4 Enclosure cc: Department of Assessments Boundary Review Board Building & Land Development Division Finance Office General Services Division METRO Planning Division + Planning & Graphics Department of Public Works Department of Public Safety Environmental Health Division Washington State Department of Ecology Kroll. Maps Thomas Brothers Maps Chicago Title Insurance Company Commonwealth Land Title Insurance First American Title Company of WA Ticor Title Insurance Safeco Title Insurance Company Transamerica Title Insurance Company Washington Natural Gas Company K. C. 911 Program 6r: Oa. 65 v? � 0 iy, • r-,- l.T' FILE NO. 1438p CITY OF RENTON Proposed Annexation (COntainer Corp of America ANNEXATION TO City of Renton COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 KING COUNTY ORD. NO. CERTIFICATE 8709250886 the undersigned, Maxine E. Motor Clerk of the City of Renton, Washington, certify that this is a tail and correct copy of Ordinance No. 4086 Subscribed and Sealed this 25th day of Septemng$ 87 City Clerk CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4086 RECE 'ED 198T SEP 2.8 ,P14.12: 27 CLERK KING COUNTY COUNCII, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF RENTON. (CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA (A-006-86) WHEREAS under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, as amended, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the City of Renton, as described below, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City of Renton on or about February 26, 1986, and WHEREAS prior to the filing and circulation of said petition for annexation to the City of Renton, the petitioning owners notified the City Council of their intention to commence such proceedings as provided by law, and as more particularly specified in RCW 35.13.125 and upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners having agreed to assume the pre-existing bonded indebtedness of the City of Renton as it pertains to the territory petitioned to be annexed; and to accept that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable zoning code relating thereto, and WHEREAS the Policy Development Department has examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexations and determined the assessed valuation of all the properties, the same being in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) of the area to be annexed in value, as provided by law and the petition also. (7).190 /DO L9 ORDINANCE NO. 4086 setting forth the legal description of theproperty according to government legal subdivision or plat and the Policy Development Department of the City of Renton having considered and recommended the annexing of said property to the City of Renton; and WHEREAS the City Council fixed February 9, 1987 at 8:00 P.M. as the time and place for public hearing in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington, upon the petition and notice thereof having been given as provided by law, and WHEREAS pursuant to said notice a public hearing has been held at the time and, place specified in the notice and the Council having considered all matters in connection with the petition and further determined that all legal requirements and procedures of the law applicable to the petition method for annexation as specified in RCW 35.13.130 et seq have been complied with, and WHEREAS a "Notice of Intention" having been filed with the King County Boundary Review Board as required by law, and the Boundary Review Board having waived its jurisdiction as per its letter dated July 30, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The findings, recitals and determinations are hereby found tobe true and correct in all respects; all requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition method, including the provisions of RCW 35.13.125, 130, 140, 150 and Chapter 189, Session Laws of 1967 have been complied with. ORDINANCE NO. 4086 It is further determined that the petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property being described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. and the owners -petitioners of the property shall assume the pre- existing bonded indebtedness of the City of Renton as prescribed in RCW 35.13.126 as it Pertains to the property, and the property to be subject to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. SECTION II: This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of Washington, and as otherwise provided by law. SECTION III: The annexed property, contiguous to Precinct No. 11-95 of the City of Renton shall be and constitute a of said City. part of the Precinct No. 11-95 1987. 1987. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21st day of September, APPROVED BY THE Approved as to Form: aA"..-0444.40 eaki J. Warr Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk MAYOR this 21st day of September, Lawrence Date of Publication: * ahba h.) . SQ-rL.)Cds. Barbara Y. hinpoch, Mayor City Attorney September 25, 1987 CITY: 8/31/87/nd ORDINANCE NO. 4086 EXHIBIT uAn CONTAINER CORP. Legal Description RECE1VE.D 1987 SEP 28 P11 2: 03 CLERK KING COUNTY COUNCti. All that portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13; And of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14; And of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23; And of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24; All in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly Right -of -Way Line of Monster Road S.W. (formerly known as Steele Hill Road - Survey 24-23-4-1, Established 5-25-31, or County Rd. No. 8) with the northerly Right -of -Way Line of the Northern Pacific Railway Belt Line Right -of -Way in the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 .said point also being the existing City Limit of Renton as annexed by Ordinances No. 17d4 and No. 1928; Thence northwesterly along se -id northerly railroad Right -of -Way Line and northeasterly line of Northern Pacific Railway Main Line through the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 and through the Northeast Quarter of said Section 23 and through the Southeast Quarter of• Section 14 to the thread of the Black River (the former limits of the City of Tukwila) and the existing limits of the City of Renton as"annexed by Ordinance No. 4040; Thence northeasterly along said thread and said City limits line to the centerline Right -of -Way line of Monster Road S.W. (formerly known as So. 143rd St.), also being the existing City Limit of Renton as annexed under Ordinance No. 1928; 1. Thence easterly and6outheasterlji along said existing City pf Renton limits to the south line of said Section 13; Thence southerly along said City limits, said line also being the West Right -of -Way Line of said Monster Road S.W. in the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 to the point of beginning. 8Z €£ .Wd S 1 130 !961 '.1.d3(1 • er1NN.R, &Rp OF ATINZYATioty ORDINANCE NO. 4086. N rThr MAP ,. 5R sa •�IU�ttonno 1111 ,... dpppl I�IIIIIIIIIIIIaIiiIlllUjj"! .00 tl Li- mit TQ ��IIIIIIIII • IIIIu�� IIIIii:•illttttttttl VIIIIItttl1 i I 4 1 NM./ ME DER 00 W DEPT. OF P:STISTERTS 190T OCT15 N,1 3: 27 Legal Description for City Of Tukwila - Proposed Annexation (Fire District 01 Revised) September 15, 1988 Revision Juniper Street, also known as South 120th Street; Thence East along said South margin and its Easterly extension approxi- mately 420 feet to the Southwest margin of Empire Way South (State Road #2); Thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly margin to its intersec- tion with the East Right -of -Way line of SR-5 and the Northwesterly corner of tax lot 0182000195, said point being further defined as lying approximately 310 feet North of the North margin of South 126th Street ( as measured along said East Right -of -Way line of SR-5); Thence Southerly along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line to an intersec- tion with the Northeast margin of Union Pacific Railroad (AKA Oregon -Washington Railroad and Navigation Company); Thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly railroad margin to an intersection with the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 14 —2 3-04; Thence continuing along said Northeasterly railroad margin to an inter- section with the Easterly production of the centerline of Edward Ave. (S. 139th Street) as platted in Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts and vacated under Tukwila Ordinance No. 101; Thence Westerly along said Easterly production to the Southwesterly margin of the Northern Pacific Railway right-of-way, as recorded respec- tively in Volume 830, page 305, Volume 825, page 545, Volume 821, page 263 of Deeds, Records of King County, said line being also on the existing Tukwila City Limit Line; Thence Northwesterly along said margin and Tukwila City Limit Line 2,400.00 feet, more or less, to the West line of the Northeast quarter of 4 Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Southerly along said West line and Tukwila City Limit Line ft 120.00 feet, more or less, to the thread of the Duwamish River; Thence along said thread and Tukwila City Limit Line in a Northwesterly direction to the intersection with the Southeasterly production of the Northeasterly margin of Tract 74, East Riverton Garden Tracts, according to the plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 79, in King County, Washington and City Limit Line of Tukwila as established by City Ordinance 494; Thence Northwesterly along said production and said Northeasterly margin respectively, to an intersection with the Southeasterly margin of 57th Avenue South; Thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly margin to the Southeasterly production of the Northeasterly margin of Tract 51 of said Plat; Thence Northwesterly along said Southeasterly production and said Northeasterly margin to the Southeast margin of 56th Avenue South; Thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly margin to the Southwest margin of South 133rd Street; Thence Southeasterly along the Southwest margin of South 133rd Street and the Southeasterly production thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River and existing Tukwila City Limit Line; Thence downstream along said thread and Tukwila City Limit Line in a general Northwesterly direction to the intersection with the Southeasterly extension of the Southwesterly margin of Richard Street, as platted in Allentown Addition as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 100, Records of King County, Washington; Thence Northwesterly along said Tukwila City Limit Line and Southeasterly extension and said Southwesterly margin 1,050.00 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the Northwesterly line of Lot 32, Block 13, said Allentown Addition; Thence Southwesterly along said Tukwila City Limit Line and Northwesterly line and the Southwesterly extension thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River; Thence Westerly along said thread and Tukwila City Limit Line 2,150.00 feet, more or less, to an angle point in the Tukwila City Limit Line and the East margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southerly along said East margin and city limits 400 feet more or less.to an ankle point on the city limits of Tukwila; Thence Northwesterly along said City Limit Line of Tukwila to the West margin of said 42nd Avenue South; -9- Legal Description for City Of Tukwila - Proposed Annexation (Fire District #1 Revised) September 15, 1988 Revision Thence Northerly along said margin to the Westerly line of Puget Sound Electric Railway right-of-way; Thence North along the West line of said right-of-way approximately 1030 feet more or less to a point of intersection with the Easterly exten- sion of the South line of Tract 22, of Riverside Interurban Tracts; as recorded in Vol. 10, page 74 of Plats, Records of King County, Washington; Thence West along said South line and extension to the East margin of the Pacific Highway, also known as East Marginal Way South, said point also being on the Easterly extension of the centerline of South 124th Street; Thence Northerly along said East margin to the Easterly extension of the North margin of said South 124th Street; Thence Westerly along said Easterly extension and said North margin to the East line of Lot 9, Block 4 of said Riverton Addition; as recorded in Vol. 13, page 36 of Plats, Records of King County, Washington; Thence Northerly along said East line and the East line of Lot 16, of said Block 4 and the West line of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930 to the South line of the Westerly portion of Lot 4 of said Short Plat; Thence Westerly along said South line to the Southwest corner of said Westerly portion; Thence Northerly along the West line thereof to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; Thence Easterly along the North line thereof to the Westerly margin of East Marginal Way South; Thence Northerly along said West margin to the South line of the North 1,168.66 feet of Section 10; Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Westerly along said South line to the West line of said Section 10; Thence Northerly along the West line of said Section 10 to the thread of the Duwamish River; Thence Westerly and Northerly along said thread of the Duwamish River, and waterway, to the North line of Section 32, Township 24, Range 4 East, W.M., said point being also on the Seattle City Limit Line; Thence Easterly along said North line and the North line of said Section 23 and said Seattle City Limit Line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. WP:(ES)P5 8907310796 September 15, 1988 Revision LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF TUKWILA - PROPOSED ANNEXATION (Fire District #1 Revised) BEGINNING at the intersection of the East margin of East Marginal Way South with the South line of the North 825.00 feet of the J. Buckley D.C.#42 in Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence Northwesterly along said East margin to the North line of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along said North line which is also the Seattle City Limit Line S 89°17'40" E 868.00 feet more or less, to the centerline of the filled riverbed of the Duwamish River; Thence following Southerly and Easterly along this curving centerline of said filled riverbed, which is also the Seattle City Limit Line, a distance of approximately 3,400.00 feet to the North border of the Southeast quarter of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence along said section border which is also the Seattle City Limit Line S 88°32'07" E 1,895.00 feet more or less to the Westerly margin of Airport Way South; Thence Southerly along said Westerly margin of Airport Way South to the East line of said Section 33; Thence Southerly along said East line which is also the Seattle City Limit Line and continuing Southerly along said Seattle City Limit L`ne and the East line of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. to the centerline of South 104th Street; Thence East along said 104th Street which is also the Seattle City Limit Line to the Easterly boundary of Primary State Highway No. 2 (Empire Way south); Thence South along said Easterly boundary and Seattle City Limit Line 620.00 feet more or less to the Northerly margin of South 107th Street (also known as S. Ryan Way); Thence in a Southeasterly direction along said Northerly margin and Seattle City Limit Line to the intersection of the East Line of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., with the North line of South 107th Street, as conveyed to King County, Washington, by deed recorded under King County Auditor's File No. 3444401; Thence North along the East line of said subdivision and Seattle City Limit Line 940.00 feet, more or less to the North line of said subdivision, also known as the North line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 3; Thence East along said North line and Seattle City Limit Line to the West margin of 51st Avenue S.; Thence South along said margin to the centerline of South 112th Street, being on the North line of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Thence continuing South along said West margin of 51st Avenue South 452 feet more or less, to an intersection with the South line of South 113th Street, sometimes called Avon Street; Thence Westerly on the South line of said street 138.28 feet more or less to the Northwesterly corner of tax lot 334840-1670; thence South 07-00-02 East 288.71 feet; thence North 69-58-16 West to a point 101.13 feet from the West margin of 51st Avenue South when measured along said line; thence South 05-16-46 East to the existing north margin of South 114th Street; thence Easterly along said North margin 50 feet more or less to the existing Seattle City Limit Line; Thence Southerly and Easterly along said Seattle City Limit Line to the East line of said Section 10; Thence South on said East line to a point approximately 2,630.00 feet South of the Northeast corner of Section 10 and on the South margin of EXHIBIT A CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO /s /S- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING - TON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1503 TO CORRECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City Council that Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1503, passed February 21. 1989, contained an incorrect legal descrip- tion, and WHEREAS. it is necessary to correct such legal description to complete the annexation of the full area approved by the Boundary Review Board and approved by vote of the residents, and ;0 WHEREAS, it is necessary for the public peace and safety that the correct boundaries be established within the jurisdiction of the City as soon as possible: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA. G j WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Ordinance No. 1503 of the City of Tukwila, Washing- ;� ton, is hereby amended by replacing Exhibit A to said Ordinance with Exhibit A to this Ordinance which by this reference is incorporated herein in full. Section 2. Ratification. In all other respects, Ordinance No. 1503 shall remain in full force and effect andis ratified hereby. J Section 3. Effective Date - Declaration of Emergency. A public emergency is hereby declared for the protection of the public safety and peace and this Ordinance shall be effective immediately. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING - TON, this day of Mal ,1989. Ga L. Van Dusen, Mayor ATTEST / AUTHENTICATED: � Jug 67,x. aCJ4.�._ :fnn And erson, City Clerk APB OVED AS F FICE OF CITY J CTTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: S- 8 - 8 l PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 5 - - S 7 PUBLISHED: .5- 1'!- 8 EFFECTIVE DATE: ,;rm yi p et a t P ORDINANCE NO. /5 -5- 89/n7/31 #i ?96 D REC:D F 3.00 R:EC:FEE 2. 0n CASHSL :+::+* 1 n. r00 35 :>, --- „n EXHIBIT A KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 8903300380 (Legal is written to street centerlines) BEGINNING at the intersection of the centerline of East Marginal Way South and the westerly production of the centerline of South Rose Street; THENCE southeasterly along the centerline of East Marginal Way South to a point which lies south 66°18'57" west from a point "A" described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the east margin of East Marginal Way South, said point being north 23°41'03" west a distance of 351.24 feet along said margin from the intersection of the south line of Henry Van Asselt donation land claim No. 50, with the east margin of East Marginal Way South, as marked on the west boundary of Boeing Field, said point also being the point of intersection of said east- erly margin with the shore line of the Duwamish River as established by Commer- cial Waterway District No. 1; THENCE continuing north 23°41'03" west along said last margin a distance of 461.75 feet to Point "A" and end of said description; THENCE north 66°18'57" east to Point "A"; THENCE continuing north 66°18'57" east at right angles to the easterly margin of East Marginal Way South a distance of 149 feet along the northwesterly line of Parcel "B" of a tract of land conveyed to Friday, Inc., by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5286620; THENCE south 23°41'03" east parallel to said easterly margin a distance of 259 feet; THENCE south 66°18'57" west a distance of 149 feet to an intersection with the easterly margin of East Marginal Way South said intersection being a point 259 feet southeast of Point "A"; THENCE continuing south 66°18'57" west to the centerline of East Marginal Way South; THENCE southeasterly on said centerline to the centerline of South Barton Street extended westerly; THENCE easterly along said extension and centerline of South Barton Street to the west margin of Northern Pacific Railway right-of-way; THENCE southerly along said west margin of Northern Pacific Railway right-of-way and the westerly city limits of the City of Seattle, to the centerline of South 104th Street; THENCE east along South 104th Street to the easterly boundary of Primary State Highway No. 2 (Empire Way South); THENCE south along said easterly boundary 620 feet, more or less, to the northerly margin of South 107th Street; THENCE in a south- easterly direction along said northerly margin to the intersection of the east line of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 Legal Description King County Fire Protection District No. 1 Page 2 North, Range 4 East, W.M., with the north line of South 107th Street, as conveyed to King County, Washington, by deed recorded under King County Auditor's File No. 3444401; THENCE north along the east line of said subdivision 940 feet, more or less, to the north line of said subdivision, also known as the centerline of South 104th Street; THENCE east along said centerline to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; THENCE south along 51st Avenue South to the centerline of South 112th Street, being the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; THENCE continuing south along the east line of said Section 10, to an intersection with the south line of South 113th Street, sometimes called Avon Street, which is a point on the east line of said Section 10, distant 452.30 feet south from the northeast corner of said section; THENCE westerly on the south line of said street to the northwesterly corner of Lot 151, Block 16, C. D. Hillman's Meadow Gardens Addition, Division No. 2, cp as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 82, Records of King County; THENCE southerly on the west side of said lot to the north line of South 114th Street, CD 0 sometimes called Augusta Street, as platted in said addition; THENCE easterly along said north line to the present city limits on the east line of said Or`W Section 10; THENCE south on said east line to a point approximately 2,600 feet south of the northeast corner of Section 10 and on the centerline of Juniper Street, also known as South 120th Street; THENCE east approximately 1,100 feet to the northerly production of the centerline of Block 3, Allentown Acres, as recorded in Volume 13 of Plats, page 22, Records of King County; THENCE southerly along said northerly production and said centerline of said Block 3 to an intersection with the centerline of State Road No. 2; THENCE southeasterly along said centerline to the intersection 'of the north and south centerline of Section 13, Twp 23 N., Range 4E., W.M.; THENCE south along said north and south centerline to the south line of South 140th Street; THENCE westerly and southwesterly along the southerly line of South 140th Street, also known as Beacon Coal Mine Company Road, to the northerly line of the Pacific Coast Railroad; THENCE southwesterly along said northerly line to the centerline of 68th Avenue South (also known as County Road No. 8, Steel Hill Road and Monster Road); THENCE northwesterly along said centerline to the centerline of Beacon Coal Mine Road (also known as Steel Hill Road, County Road No. 8 and Monster Road), as shown on the Junction Addition to Seattle Plat, Volume 12 of Plats, Legal Description King County Fire Protection District No. 1 Page 3 8903300380 page 75, Records of King County; THENCE northwesterly along said road centerline 250 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the easterly extension of the centerline of Edward Avenue (now known as South 139th Street), as platted in C. D. Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 24, Records of King County; THENCE westerly along said extension 700 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly margin of the Northern Pacific Railway right- of-way, as recorded respectively in Volume 830, page 305, Volume 825, page 545, Volume 821, page 263 of deeds, Records of King County; THENCE northwesterly along said margin 2,400 feet, more or less, to the west line of the northeast 1/4 of Section 14 in said T23N, R4E, W.M.; THENCE southerly along said west line, 120 feet, more or less, to the thread of the Duwamish River; THENCE along said thread in a northwesterly direction to the intersection with the southeasterly production of the northeasterly margin of Tract 74, East Riverton Garden Tracts, according to plat recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 79, in King County, Washington; THENCE northwesterly along said production and said northeasterly margin respectively, to intersection with the southeasterly margin of 57th Avenue South; THENCE southwesterly along said southeasterly margin to the southeasterly production of the northeasterly margin of Tract 51 of said plat; THENCE northwesterly along said southeasterly production and said northeasterly margin to the southeast margin of 56th Avenue South; THENCE southwesterly along said southeasterly margin to the southwest margin of South 133rd Street; THENCE southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 133rd Street and the southeasterly production thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River; THENCE along said thread in a general northwesterly direction to the intersection with the southeasterly extension of the southwesterly margin of Richard Street, as platted in Allentown Addition, as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 100, Records of King County; THENCE northwesterly along said southeasterly extension and said southwesterly margin 1,050 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot 32, Block 13, said Allentown Addition; THENCE southwesterly along said northwesterly line and the southwesterly extension thereof to the thread of the Duwamish River; THENCE westerly along said thread 2,150 feet, more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33, Riverside Interurban Tracts, unrecorded; (THENCE west to the west line of the Puget South Electric Railway right-of-way; THENCE north 8903300380 Legal Description King County Fire Protection District No. 1 Page 4 along the west line of said right-of-way approximately 850 feet to a point opposite the south line of Tract 22, of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; THENCE west 1,000 feet, more or less, to the centerline of the Pacific Highway, also known as East Marginal Way South, said point also being on the centerline of South 124th Street;) THENCE continuing westerly along said centerline to the southerly prolongation of the west line of Block 2, Riverton Addition, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 13 of Plats, page 36, Records of King County, Washington; THENCE northerly along said west line and its southerly prolongation to the northwest corner of said Block 2; THENCE northerly along the east line of the west 820 feet of said Section 10 to a point "B" described as follows: BEGINNING at the west quarter corner of Section 10; THENCE south along the west line thereof 29.35 feet to the south margin of an easement granted to S. H. Vincent dated August 10, 1907, recorded under Auditor's File No. 503128; THENCE east along said south margin -820 feet; THENCE south 421.15 feet to Point "B" and END OF DESCRIPTION; THENCE east parallel to the north line of Government Lot 15 to the centerline of East Marginal Way South; THENCE northerly along said centerline to the south line of the north 1,168.66 feet of Section 10; THENCE westerly along said south line to the west line of Section 10; THENCE northerly along the west line of said Section 10 to (the north line of Government Lot 6 of said Section 10; THENCE easterly along the north line of said Government Lot 6 to the centerline of East Marginal Way South; THENCE northerly along said centerline to) the east line of the Duwamish River; THENCE westerly and northerly along east line of the Duwamish River, and waterway to the centerline of South Rose Street, extended westerly; THENCE easterly along the centerline of South Rose Street, extended to POINT OF BEGINNING. Except Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 22, C. D. Hillman's Meadow Gardens Division No. 3, as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 86, Records of King County. February 05, 2018 8:53: PATH: C: \PMX\Temp\ACPublIsh 6372\ Puget Sound I—r— B.tirien Seattle V Bellevue Lake Washington ( Project ' ! .Site T'la l Se Tac ent Jam,/ 4350 C 515 Jh LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX REVISIONS DAE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAM rucM. MILLER ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CG-01 • cg 44, \� r O . MO/y BEGIN PROJECT Fort Dent Park CITY OF TUKWILA `'- 'OqO UNI ORPORATED •• KING I - ) COUNTY -/ a e�CK � E CITY OF RENTON 44 Fc rI IIy BLACK PARIAN RIVE' FOR T -,_ END ti: �EROJECT"71111. I • 1405 • VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ENGINEERING. PLANNING. EMARONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME f LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A 7TH ST —I 1 L RECEIVED MAR 172016 Community Development 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION COVER SHEET I I CRANING N0. 1 OF 57 z- DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 8:53:41 AM PLOTTED BY: rnelernol PATH C: \PM%\Torap\AcPubllell_6372\ ABBREVIATIONS: ACP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PC POINT OF CURVE BOC BACK OF CURB PT POINT OF TANGENT BOW BACK OF SIDEWALK P/L PROPERTY UNE BP BEGIN PROFILE PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE BVCE BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATION PUD PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BVCS BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE STATION PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION CB CATCH BASIN R RADIUS C&G CURB AND GUTTER RT RIGHT C/L CENTERLINE ROW or R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY CONC CONCRETE SD STORM DRAIN CONST CONSTRUCTION SDMH STORMWATER MANHOLE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SS SANITARY SEWER COR CRY OF RENTON STA STATION CP CONCRETE PIPE TDA THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA CSTC CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TEL TELEPHONE DIA DIAMETER TESC TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DI, DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE TYP TYPICAL E EAST, EASTING VC VERTICAL CURVE EOA EDGE OF ASPHALT VERT VERTICAL EOG EDGE OF GRAVEL W WATER EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT WS WATER SERVICE EP END PROFILE WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EVCE END VERTICAL CURB ELEVATION EVCS END VERTICAL CURB STATION EX, EXIST EXISTING FOC FACE OF CURB FL FLANGE, FLOWUNE G GAS GB GRADE BREAK HMA HOT MIX ASPHALT HORIZ HORIZONTAL ID INDENTIFICATION IE INVERT ELEVATION KC KING COUNTY LF LINEAR FEET LP LOW POINT LT LEFT ME MATCH EXISTING MIN MINIMUM MON MONUMENT N NORTH, NORTHING N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT NO. NUMBER NST NOT STEEPER THAN OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED A KIKI ITA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521O84PAT2T2C—G02 03 JOB No, ____ ___ ....., INDEX TO DRAWINGS DWG NO. SHT NO. SHEET TITLE GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 COVER SHEET ABBREVIATIONS AND SHEET LIST LEGEND SURVEY CONTROL PLAN SURVEY CONTROL PLAN A-UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL C-UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CON IHUL B-UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL SITE PREPARATION 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 TESC1 TESC2 TESC3 TESC4 TESCS TESC6 TESC7 TESCB TESC9 CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN NG, GRADING AND TESC PLAN TYPICAL SECTIONS 18 CS1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS PLAN & PROFILE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 N I� N f0 l� pp 0O e- N M N CD UU MU U C) 3000UUUUoo PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE INTERSECTION PLAN PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE SIGN SCHEDULE AND GRADING DETAIL GRADING PLAN STORM DRAINAGE 35 SD1 CULVERT DETAILS WALL PROFILES 36 WP1 GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PROFILES DETAILS 37 38 39 40 01 D2 D3 D4 DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS SIGNALIZATION 41 42 43 44 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 SIGNAL PLAN SIGNAL WIRING DIAGRAM SIGNAL POLE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS SIGNAL DETAILS STRUCTURAL 45 46 47 48 Si S2 S3 S4 BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION BRIDGE FOUNDATION LAYOUT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PIERS 1 AND 2 BARUST MITIGATION 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MP6 MP7 MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS MITIGATION NOTES TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 56 57 TC1 TC2 SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL I'arametrix ENGINEERNG.PLANNING- ENVRONLONTAL SCENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I I 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ABBREVIATIONS AND SHEET LIST DRAWING NO. 2 OF 57 (42 ( \ / \ \ / \ / I I LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ROW UNE R/W SPLIT RAIL FENCE UNE —// // A, — --- ' -- TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE W/ LAMP RAILROAD C/L RAILROAD C/L BARBWIRE FENCE UNE ---- ----.. x.._ - _. TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE PROPERTY UNE — - - — - - P/L -- — -- — CHAIN UNK FENCE UNE - - -- . ,--..._. _. - .. TRAFFIC CONTROL LOOP (SO) CRY BOUNDARY UNE • • • • 1 • • • • HOG WIRE FENCE UNE TRAFFIC CONTROL CABINET EASEMENT UNE WOOD GUARDRAIL -z —t- -a r J 7 PEDESTRIAN POLE FOUND MONUMENTS ® ® GUY ANCHOR -) MONITORING WELL REBAR & CAP O POWER POLE WITH LIGHT ¢--1- SURFACE POST HUB & TACK 0 FLOOD UGHT =may=: SICM \/ PK NAIL /el\ UTILITY POLE n- SKIP LANE UNE PROPERTY CORNER • PP W/ UG DROP 'a SOUD LANE UNE e e FOG UNE STREAM BUFFER PP W/ UG DROP & XMFR STREAM OVERHEAD POWER - ..------- - • OP -- -----. .. __ LEFT ARROW EDGE OF WATER POWER STRAIGHT ARROW •11111� WETLAND FLAG POWER VAULT ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OHWM POWER TRANSFORMER 100-YEAR FL00DPLAIN BOUNDARY POWER MANHOLE SURFACE FLAW DIRECTION POWER HANDHOLE DITCH UNE — -- POWER CABINET STORM DRAIN UNE So- POWER RISER CULVERT QUARRY SPALL POWER METER SOUD UD J-BOX CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 2 © `C LUMINAIRE INLET PROTECTION TELEPHONE VAULT SANITARY SEWER UNE 55 TELEPHONE RISER SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE O .6) ® TELEPHONE MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER VAULT TELEPHONE CLEANOUT • TV RISER CONTOURS MAJOR CONTOURS MINOR 2 FIBER OPTIC FILTER FABRIC FENCE—O-0-0-0-0— GAS VALVE HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE X X CLEARING AND GRUBBING UMITS—CG—ec—ec—w— FILL UNE -----F F F F- CUT UNE e e c c- SAWCUi UNE / / / / / / / / / z i ASPHALT EDGE — --- '' CONCRETE UNE CURB AND GUIILH UNE EDGE OF PATCH EDGE OF GRAVEL JURISDICTIONAL DITCH ROCKERY CONCRETE BARRIER A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCHAT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAJ.IE wo,rntnn_rnn A2 GAS WATER UNE FIRE HYDRANT WATER METER WATER VALVE WATER BLOW OFF VALVE WATER POST INDICATOR SPRINKLER HEAD ROT=90 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE LJLJUUUUU PROPOSED EXISTING P L1 a FAR TJ FR (T� T<1 ') T TV RIGHT ARROW MAILBOX TREES WETLAND SYMBOL WETLAND BOUNDARY VEGETATION RETAINING WALL RIP RAP ROCKERY KANDICAPPED SYMBOL WHEELCHAIR RAMP BUILDING UNE CONCRETE STAIR UNE WOOD STAIRWAY ASPHALT PATH CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ENGINEERED SOIL MIX 0 LANDSCAPE AREA { RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING RESTORATION PLANTING AREA 8 51 ENGINEERING. PIANMNG . ENVIRONIENTAL SCIENCES IPROJECT NAME TEST PR OR BORE HOLE i RECEIVED MAR 17 2016 Community Development LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A A EPPM SSA TP f OR BH j EXISTING ( JI l o❑ ci 0 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND I DRAWING NO. 3 OF 57 PLOTTED BY: miasmal DATE Friday, February 05, 2016 11:35:12 AM BEGIN PROJECT STA 1+00.00 A-UNE \ - CSC 2+00 ALINE C)1 KC PPID1 N0. 7223500380 KING COUNT' TRACT 36 RENCN SCRD.WOS 4+00 KC PARCEL NO. 232306001 COT a 7E4091A NE 23-23-04 CITY OF TUKWILA SE 14-23-04 KC PARCEL NO. 7229500350NNW 5 KC PARCEL NO. 2323049005 ENV KC PARCEL NO. 1323049020 9NSF m - / (p 1 �9016 m / N=177351.98 m E=1291743.33 ELV=22.73 OI SET REBAR NO CAP 1 \ 4L� KC PACK NO. 377920011E CRY CF MOON KC Mtn Na O.W. IZR- . ND NAY. CO 1fS5EL._.-�� • BEGIN CLINE STA 201+00.00 IKC FAICEL KO. T22950E130 8+00 Nat. RR ND NW. CO. coN=176607.11 Kc PARCELw on u� /KC_If Nzo f;'.- �N0. .�-. 1422O49COB C.IL13 RR i .tom - 7 11 N=176125.66 E=1290276.61 ELV=27.80 FOUND 1-)i' BRASS DISK W/ PUNCH 0.5' DOWN CITY OF RENTON NW 24-23-04 SW 13-23-04 - -T2OD-_1 y REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN K. BRAATEN CHECKED A KIKIITA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-GO G05 JOB No: -__- __. .__. KC PARCEL N0.1323049090 COY OF 1V(K1A E=1290388.76 ELV=35.01 FOUND 110N IN CASE 002 N=176477.49 E=1290501.99 ELV=34.95 W&TK BEGIN B-LINE 1D0+00 STA 99+94.19 KC PARCEL NO. 13230,9020 B6F KC PARCi1. NO. 722 500310 K1N6 CODNTI PER TIRE RE7OR1 104. KC PACE1 NO. 37792/30117 CRT OF RDI70N / KC Mal Na 1323049012 DIY OF RENTON SW 13-23-04 END A -LINE STA 17+76.45 _ _ KCT79200111D. V��� CRY OF RORON " 1. __- KC PACE. NO. 3779200119 F31T OF WITON 72362 N=176395.57 E=1290884.66 \ \` ELV=26.59 \ NAIL .47N,c\ \ ss END C-LINE STA 206+50,00 SCALE IN FEET 0 100' 200' 44.4 SE 13-23-04 0 IWIto T3 N �75� Iw SCALE IN FEET 0 100200' -.Li A I 9015 N=177033.12 I=, E=1291310.30 (;) ELV=30.68 . IT -- SET REBAR NO CAP / 1� IOC PARCEL NO. / 377VeW119 CRT OF RENTON SURVEY NOTES: 1. HORIZONTAL DATUM, BASIS OF MERIDIAN: GRID NORTH, WASHINGTON COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD83(91) HELD CITY OF RENTON MONUMENTS: HORIZONTAL AND STATIONS 1333 AND 1854 2. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 HELD CITY OF RENTON BENCHMARKS: BM#1333 AND BM#1854 3. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS CONDITIONS AND FEATURES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THIS TOPOGRAPHY IN OCTOBER, 2010. 4. CONVENTIONAL AND GPS SURVEY EQUIPMENT WAS USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SURVEY. ALL EQUIPMENT IS MAINTAINED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT STATE STATUTE. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix NG. PLANNING. ENVIRGNNENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A SURVEY CONTROL PLAN DRAWING NO. 4 OF 57 (_A PLOTTED BY: mNlamal DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 9 L 0 BEGIN PROJECT BP STA.1+00 BLACK RIVER 1KC PARCEL NO. 7229500360 1( �� 1 COIROIY 'TRACT 37 RENION 910RE1PNOS STA 6+52. 11.0'LT OHWM _-- -►}— PARCEL no. 7229500360 TOCITY OF w SHO 36 6007ON 51(RBADS In1 1 e.l%- _ i W - 1 �a—x—ca r �C _— _i�C2D MI-------:-. /�/1 L �1 S� z \F6'RT V 'GREEN RIVER TRAIL KC PARCEL. N0. 7229500350 E Q�sn. ��J; 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 1� 1�. . KAMA-.-� /11 ily( 1 �vl JI f7 A KC PARCEL ND. 2323049005 'OVERHEAD WATERUNE n- 11 • DAT BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER fHFI'KFD ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IFNOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 811521084PAT2T2DM-1 0. L FORT DENT PARK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 • 1 1 U 1 KC PARCEL N0. 7229500310 KC PARCEL N0. 7229500330 1 • 1 O.N. RR IND NAv. W. I 0.11. RR AND NAY. CO. �a> 1 1 • Nou La_ Z 000 1 1 Z KC PARCEL:. 7223500320 RCO F J EASEM ENT-4720302 421 1 � 'IWIDE_DRAINA _ DITCH 1\ '� -=-AfreA-"Ar T 8+00 1), 1 --- -,y. (TT t �� Q t� Z 1 1. Jr1 O N" KC PARCEL N). 23230/9003 1 1 OW. RR AND CJ • PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 xu �C.&JC'FL N0. 14 91 -1\1; _ T� i .IT`.. BLACK RIVER OHWM• 7,5Z • A 6�6�zp KC PARCEL NO 722950 300 •44;4 1 KN/G MATE TRACT 36 MOON 91DmL71DS-, /KC PARCEL NO 722950W60 1rI OTT OF 1UII OUA j DUCT 36 RENTON SIC EIMDs-0'✓ice fir— - \' - a tin + to s _ _�%�,+oo/ �_ 1 _ KC PNICf1 ND. 2323M9001 1 2 I\ 7 I 4t I r -1 ` T'— -).1. Ar{ 1 Parametrix 41, 101,14 AVENUE 1 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES SEGMENT A \ I - I- � �N h } R14 CEIVED MAR 172016 Community Development PROJECT NAME u DEMOLITION NOTES: \MAINTAIN LAIS1114G MEJAL UAIE. OREMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKING. OREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. @ ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVAT1ONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUIILR AND SIDEWAL () INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. \ REMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL. ()REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. ()REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 10 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE. ()RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO 12 FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 13 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO SECTION 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 0 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE AND REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: ()INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ()INSTALL HIGH VISIBIUTY FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-10.10-01. @INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. \INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. 1 siAdj @INSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18' BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL IS UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. REFER TO DETAIL H ON SHEET CS1 FOR SCARIFICATION DETAILS. LEGEND: /11/1 SAWCUT CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL -li— HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE OR HIGH VISIBIUTY SILT FENCE, SEE PLANS. SILT FENCE ® INLET PROTECTION RIP RAP REMOVAL 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CLEARING, GRADING AND T rrs PA �1I A •I DRAWING NO. 9 OF 57 PLOTTED BY: mlllemal DATE frlday, February 05, 2016 U: \P50\Projects\Chants\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svca\CADD\Phase A\Tusk 2T200C\Dwg\ WALL j4 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED _ WRH NATIVE SONS A -LINE STA 1+00 TO 10+36 ALINE STA 11+25 TO 15+38 B-LINE STA 104+60 TO 106+15 B-UNE STA 125+45 TO 126+75 TYPICAL SECTION IZN NO SCALE 3:1, TYP 6 SEE NOTE 2 FOR SECTION A SECTION A NOTES- 1. 0.5% FROM A-UNE STA 4+34 LT TO STA 4+82 LT. 2. 2:1 FROM A-UNE STA 11+50 RT TO STA 13+00 RT. 3. B-UNE TRANSDKNIS FROM SECTION C AT STA 104+00 TO SECTION A AT STA 104+60. 4. 8-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 106+15 TO SECTION CAT STA 106+75. 5. B-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 124+85 TO SECTION A AT STA 125+45. 6. B-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 126+75 TO SECTION C STA 127+35. COSTING GROUND TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE MIES 43. WALL 11 EXISTING GROUND RtSTURED WHH - NATIVE SOILS 6" TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER TOP OF ROADWAY WALL 15 [COSTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOBS Q REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE - IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY DRAWN M. MILLER FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CCS-01 CHECKED 0. KIKUTA JOB «°: ,a,11 no 1w /o„L 16' 2' 6' 6' 2' ^I I - PAVED TRAIL PAVED TRAIL S LDR GRADE A-UNE STA 10+36 TO 11+25 A-UNE STA 15+96 TO 16+28 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 8.5' 5' VARIES 4--6" 2% MAX. VARIES EXISTING BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB J C-LINE STA 201+19 TO 201+26 TYPICAL SECTION n NO SCALE 1.5' 2. IAN. DEPTH VARIES TYP —COSTING GROUND 8' EXISTING GROUND C-LINE STA 201+43 TO 203+58 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 6" RED BRICK RUNNING BOND STAMPED CONCRETE, TYP GRADE TO DRAIN 11 4" 11112 RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND AT MONSTER ROAD TYPICAL SECTION raN NO SCALE - O31 TYP EXISTING GROUND WALL j2 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS 3:1, TYP 16' PAVED TRAIL 1 PAVED TRAIL 5 LDR PROFILE GRADE— 2% MAX. 2.5.0 Cy, B-UNE STA 101+23 TO 104+00" BANE STA 106+75 TO 124+85 B-LINE STA 127+35 TO 143+18 TYPICAL SECTION ce1 NO SCALE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND EXISTING BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER GROUND 1-GRADE TO DRAIN CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 13-INCH EXISTING BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB BRIDGE EXPANSION JOINT POINT A A C 2-INCH PARTIAL DEPTH CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL 3:1, TYPO * SEE NOTES 3, 4, 5, AND 6 FOR SECTION A ^' SEE DETAILED GRADING AT SHEET C15 WALL j3A AND WALL 138 `�EXIStINC GROUND 2 RNATIVE ESTORED WITH TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE VARIES 1' TYP TO 2'-6. AT WALL APPROACHES 1 TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE — CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK, VARIES 2"-6". FLUSH WITH ADJOINING DRIVEWAY — 2-INCH DEPTH PARTIAL CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY MONSTER SECTION 1+37.47 PLAN SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY DETAIL NO SCALE - Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I I a EXISTING GROUND CQAENT CONC. SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION NOTES: HMA CL 3/8" PG 64-22. CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE. SELECT BORROW NCL HAUL CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER WSDOT SID PLAN F-30.10-03. HIM CL 1/2" PG 64-22. 4" TOPSOIL TYPE A AND SEEDING AND FERTILIZING BY HAND. GRAVITY BLOCK WALL OFFSET AS NOTED IN CROSS-SECTKN. SEE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON SHEET WP1. CEMENT CONC TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-10.12-03. 4' HIGH COATED CHAN LNK FENCE TYPE 6 WITH TOP RAIL PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS DRAWING N 18 OF 5 CS1 BEGIN PROJECT BP�STA_1++00 itfl7, 10.O'RT 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 N • GREEN RIVER TRAIL �"✓- o -( - x-- .� lJ 1 { I' , u F\ \ —I a- i \ = fx `\\� d 2+00 • '� tiw, • I 150' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH EI}SEMENT #7203020421 C I ---F----- F^~--�.—�� /�� 4+00 v 310: VA -LINE 17. FORT DENT PARK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 STA 1+00 TO -STA 10+36. KC PARCEL NO. 2323019001 TUKWILA —STA 4+34, 8.0'LT BEGIIL 0.5% CUT SLOPE (LEFT SIDE ONLY) tV el h___,...---/—i A o r i =\ BACK RIVER KC PARCEL NO. 7229500360 KING COUNTY TROCT 36 REN1DN SNOREANDS STA 4+82, 8.0'LT _ END 0.5% CUT SLOPE LEFT SIDE ONLY) V AC PARCEL NO. 777..W 1. cF1Y a 1LXMiu W % IWCr 36 010N 41DAEIAeDS W / 1= ,1 N =F- °c--. - W 'j1 W 1n I o PVI STA 1+00.00 /TTr FINISHED GRADE-- o + a G m a• '---- - _ N _ _ N N 1_94r. O N N N NiN - - N GROUN N -'_ _ - _ _ _ - 1- __ vVI I N 1 N N 7 N Ni.N N N I N N N N:N N N KIZ W N N c. N N 1+00 2+00 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN N.'MMILLER ONE INCH ALL SCALE. IF NOT• SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL15210B4PAT2T2CC-CI 3+00 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' Parametrix 4+00 ENGINEERING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 5+00 I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I I 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0 N 5+50 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. � ' BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR PIPE 10, U PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-23.60-03. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE k.c...")CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. OINSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-03 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 11 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1 AND 3, SHEET D1. 0 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2 AND 3, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. e INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. O INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 0 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 18 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. e INSTALL SOLID WALL PVC CULV. PIPE, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. PO COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL, TYPE AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS, PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 1 21) INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SEE v CS AND WP SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D2. 23 INSTALL SPUT RAIL FENCE PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D4. 24 INSTALL 4"X4"X7' PRESSURE TREATED POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION. SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET D2. ❑X SEE SIGN SCHEDULE ON SHEET C15. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 1 ON SHEET' D3 FOR ROOT PRUNING AND ROOT BARRIER PLACEMENT ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. RECEIVED MAR 172016 Community Development 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE 11. DRAWING N0. 19 OF 57 \ Vamp \AcPu bllah_6372\ 3 35 30 25 20 15 10 BLACK RIVER KC PMICO. ND. 7223506360 KRD COUNTY REN TRKC7 37 ION SHOREANOS STA 53, 9.0'RT- BEGIN 100,, VC KC PARCEL ND. 2} PVI STA 6+25.00 EL-19.65" K=92.63 KC PARCEL NO. 7 ENT STA EGIN 7 - - 1 STA 6+64, 9.0 BEGIN ® RT 0 1 _ 0 0 CC _I 1 OVERHEAD WATERUNE EXISTING OVERPASSES •• •*+•�•• oa o c PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 ELEVATIONS NOT CONFIRMED • MINI ••MEM•• KC PARCEL N0. 7225500340 O.M. RR AND NAY. CO. I MOE - UPRR KC PMCfl N0. 7225500320 Mw,Rm KC PARCEL N0. 7229500330 O.R. Pot MO NW. CO. LESSEE - UP!dt -STA 8+31, 9.0'0 END ® KC PMCEL NO. 2323049003 0.W. RR AND NW. 00. LESSEE - UPNR N + of A REMSIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED 0. KIKUTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-C1 JOB«°: ,Co, no rA /ors 0 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' -0.86% OHWM r -Zfq 14.. S` STA 8+73, 9.0'RT ' i END 20 TYPE 1 �\ = E EXISTING GROUND FINISHED GRADE 1 12"IE-13.5 W 1 ,5LF {_ , S=1 9% log VC -1 --35 2-12" SD n CO A 1 + EL-1'6.44' K=19.82 c0 co 6 30 _- 25 20 - - 15 Parametrix PROJECT NAME ENGINEEXPO PUNNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A — 10 --5 10+00 II CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-23.60-03. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-03 AND C-1B. 10 11 12 13 14 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 16 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. O INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. O INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. O INSTALL SOUD WALL PVC CULV. PIPE, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL, TYPE AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS, PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SEE CS AND WP SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D2. 23 INSTALL SPLIT RAIL FENCE PER NOT USED INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1 AND 3, SHEET D1. INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2 AND 3, SHEET D1. INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. DETAIL 5, SHEET D4. 24 INSTALL 4"X4"X7' PRESSURE TREATED POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION. SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D3 FOR ROOT PRUNING AND ROOT BARRIER PLACEMENT ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWING NO. 20 OF 57 r9 OTTEO BY: mIllemal DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 PATH: C: \PM%\Temp\AcPubllsh 6372\ SIGN SCHEDULE SIGN NO. PROPOSED LOCATION STA OFF DESCRIPTION MUTCD SIGN SIZE POST SIZE/TYPE REMARKS - SEE NOTE 4 1 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 2 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24''X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 3 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 4 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 5 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 6 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 7 SEE SHEET TS1 ARROW W16-7P 24"X12" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3 8 SEE SHEET T51 ARROW W16-7P 24"X12" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3 9 B 142+97 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A N/A N/A PROTECT IN PLACE 10 B 143+15 NO DUMPING N/A N/A 4"X4" / WOOD EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. 11 8 143+15 NO STOPPING OR STANDING N/A N/A N/A REMOVE AND DISPOSE 12 A 1+30 SPEED LIMIT R2-1 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 13 A 15+2D NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 14 A 16+10 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 15 B 142+90 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 16 B 142+90 SPEED OMIT R2-1 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD NOTES: 1. MOUNT ON MAST ARM, PER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD PLAN G011. 2. MOUNT ON SIGNAL OR LIGHT STANDARD, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN G-30.10-01. 3. FLUORESCENT YELLOW -GREEN BACKGROUND. 4. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE IN THE REMARKS. 5. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR SIGN LOCATIONS. A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN POINT ELEVATION STATION OFFSET NORTHING EASTING 200 29.37 B 102+43 6.0' LT 176555.06 1290767.16 201 29.37 B 102+49 6.4' LT 176542.07 1290767.53 202 29.96 A 17+41 6.0' LT 176527.75 1290770.97 203 29.96 A 17+41 0' 176529.16 1290776.83 204 29.96 A 17+41 6.0' RT 176530.32 1290782.72 205 29.37 A 17+54 6.0' RT 176540.86 1290783.02 206 29.06 A 17+64 6.0' RT 176548.10 1290786.21 207 28.70 B 102+65 6.0' RT 176554.94 1290793.02 208 28.82 B 102+65 0' 176559.88 1290789.61 209 28.94 B 102+65 6.0' LT 176564.87 1290786.28 210 29.21 B 102+54 6.0' LT 176559.27 1290776.72 211 29.15 A 17+64 0.8' LT 176551.85 1290780.50 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCHCH A�FULL SSCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME R11A91DR4PAT7TDCC-C1 A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION `15?�1 W GRADING PLAN .e 2!� DETAIL 1 �e 1110 Cat.• � ., ENGINEERING. PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 209 ) IPROJECT NAME IGN PER PLANS AND SPECS. 4x4 PRESSURE TREATED FIR POST. INSTALL W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKF1LL PROVIDE 4" COMMERCIAL CONCRETE CAP WHEN INSTALLED IN ASPHALT SURFACE. NOTE: 1. STAKE SIGN LOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL 2. SEE THIS SHEET FOR SIGN SCHEDULE. POST -MOUNTED SIGNAGE NOTE 1. USE 7' MOUNTING HEIGHT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNS. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A SIGNAGE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE -2% 103+0Q - - _ _ RECEIVED MAR 172016 Community Development 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGN SCHEDULE AND /lf A 11ISl#S nr 1 A II DRAWING NO. 33 OF 57 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL February 05, 2016 10:5 0 NOTES: INSTALL 3' DIA. RED REFLECTIVE BUTTONS USING SCREWS AND BOLTS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF BOLLARD. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 3/16' X 3' X 1' STEEL SHIMS WELDED TO 5' X 5" TUBE 8 LOCATIONS, TYP 5' x 5" X 1/4" A-96 SItat SQUARE TUBE 1. PADLOCK SHALL BE MASTER KEYED ALIKE TOSM-737 WITH NO. 5LF SHACKLE, OWNER PROVIDED. 2. SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE FOOTING TO DRAIN AWAY FROM POST. 3. HOT DIP GALV. & PRIME PAINT - FINISH COLOR TO BE WHITE MARINE ENAMEL 1 1/2' 1 1/4" -III-1I1- REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 2'-0" 3/16' STEEL. PLATE. CUT TO CONFORM TO BE WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH. 4" X 4" X 3/16' (ASTM) A-36 STEEL SQUARE TUBE. INSTALLATION Stall BE PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER 1773 OR EQUAL 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM PERFORMANCE PAINT OR EOIAL. WHITE. PAINT FULL LENGTH PRIOR TO PLACEMENT (2) 3/8" STEEL PLATE WITH 3/4" RADIUS. WELD TO TUBES. DRILL 5/8" DIA HOLES. PLATES TO BE WITHIN 1/8' TO 1/2' OF EACH OTHER WHEN BOLLARD S INSTALLED FINISHED GRADE T TRAIL, TYP BROOM BRUSH //—FlNSH PLAN 3/16' STEEL PLATE 1-1/2' WIDE WELDED ACROSS END OF TUBE COMMERCIAL CONCRETE N0. 5 GRADE 60 REBAR, 4 PLACES. WELD TO 5'x 5' TUBE 2) 1" DIA DRAIN HOLES CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE BROOM BRUSH FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO TRAIL TRAFFIC FLUSH WITH HMA TRAIL SURFACING CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE I,_ COMPACTED SUBCRADE I =11 I-IIIIII= CONCRETE WARNING BAND DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 6x6x10 WELDED WIRE MESH A REVISIONS DALE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED 6t. 14DUTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1S21084PAT2T2DT-1 JOB No. 556-1591—DR4 (A/2m1 1= SECTION 45 CHAMFER INSTALL 3" DNA. RED REFLECTIVE BUTTONS USING SCREWS AND BOLTS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF BOLLARD. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS B" X B" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED WOOD POST, SET PLUMB FINISHED GRADE ASPHALT TRAIL TIP 2' CHAMFER 1-- 1 /4" MAX SLOPE CONCRETE FOR DRAINAGE MIN 1X SLOPE ASPHALT TRAIL. TYP IIIIII— I 1-111-I 11= III —I � I —I � I, —III—III—I I I I=111— 1 o:I I-1 J I: GGMMERGIAL I I 11 I I—rI CONCRETE II II1-1II- III-IIIIII 11 A �IIIIIIIIII UFrasLl,RBm III I —III=III SUB -GRADE_ ,=.—_-g . ' (1—III— -1 I I —III —III I- I f1 I I —III-1' -' I 1=1I— B'-�= I I-1 'I lillllll ILIA-I;III' FIXED BOLLARD DETAIL NOT TO SCALE I-III=III II-1"1 CEMENT CONCRETE CLASS 4000 n `4" WIDE SOUD YELLOW PAINTED UNE GRAVEL EDGE TRIAL EDGE FIXED BOLLARD, TYP] REMOVABLE CENTER BOLLARD FIXED BOLLARD, "[VP-- TRAIL EDGE GRAVEL EDGE 1 10 BOLLARD PLAN LOCATION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE BOLLARD STRIPING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 3.-0• REMOVABLE ® BOLLARD 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PIAN#WIG. ENVROMI.ETITAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A DETAILS DRAWING NO. 37 OF 57 PLAN TRAIL ASPHALT EDGE (1) TRASH RECEPTACLE PER SPECIAL PROVISION SECTION 8-30 FINISHED �o GRADE 3 o w� 6' BENCH PER SPECIAL PROVISION SECTION 8 30. STAKE LOCATION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS 3- SQ. SILEL TUBE PER MFR 4' DEPTH CONCRETE PAD W/ 6x6x10 WWM CENTERED IN SLAB. PITCH 0 2Z TO DRAIN. EXPAND DEPTH AT SURFACE PLATE 1�F _ ._:•_. FIT IIIII 6,-1I 11 11=I I I-1 TYPE 1 REST STOP DETAIL NOT TO SCALE STA 1+65, 16.0'LT,� .) - - -{>- STA 1+20, 10.9'LT STA 1+00 BP, PC N: 176307.33 E: 1290631.52 DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT --_ STA 1+31, 11.0'RT DRIVEWAY PLAN / \ SCALE IN FEET v 0 20 40 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH A T FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY rkE N,4J n. nn. n.• rn rn„ 4 • It 1. r=j 4' DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACE TOP COURSE CONCRETE FOOTING, (2) PER BENCH COMPACT SUBCRADE, TYP. SEE SPECS. INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE AFTER REMOVAL OF RIP RAP. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE DURING SHEET PILE WALL INSTALLATION. / EXISTING GROUND WITH VARIOUS SIZED RIP RAP AND VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED SANDBAGS OR GEOTEXTILE ENCASED QUARRY SPALLS. FOR SAND BAGS, STAGGER PLACEMENT TO PROVIDE OVERLAP OF JOINTS. FOR GEOTEXTILE, OVERLAP FABRIC 1' MIN. FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STD SPECIFICATION 9-33, TABLE 6. QUARRY SPALLS SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STD SPECIFICATION 9-13.6. CHECK DAM MUST BE IN PLACE DURING REMOVAL OF RIP RAP AND VEGETATION. SANDBAG OR QUARRY SPALL CHECK DAM DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SEE DETAIL ON W SHEET C51 STA 2+21 �.T? l e EP, PT STA 1 +70, 23.8'LT �: = ` N: 176368.61 Rtr L: 1 L`JUIL7.D4`� ------------ • DRIVEWAY DETAIL 40' 30' 20' SECTION o m N - i:L=30.73 PVI STA 11+44.09 4 o + co N 4 o PVI STA 2µ10.72 E L-30.76 Q F- N > o 1- N) NF7 II -I > U.'0-D N I J QCI I-O VI S _ IJ // d(ISTING BACK OF DRIVEWAY WALK FLOW UNE ^!n r7 . ON n,� 1 T i cotND M N7 r7 � �'l 00 ,� — - 1+00 kozzio ENGINEERING . MANNING .ENVRONMENTAI SCIENCES DRIVEWAY PROFILE IPROJECT NAME HORIZ: VERT: 1 "=5' 2+00 4x4 PRESSURE TREATED ER POST. INSTALL W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKFILL PROVIDE 4' COMMERCIAL CONCRETE CAP WHEN INSTALLED IN ASPHALT SURFACE 3' TYP. I=III= 11519.}-1E) II —II' 1=1 I 1=1 I I_ 40' 30' 20' 2+21 4'-0' FROM EDGE OF TRAIL 2'-0FROM EDGE OF SHOULDER 0 =1 I II I MI I I -1 1==IASPHALT 1= I I 111-111- TRAIL POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION DETAIL n RECEIVED MAR 17 2016 Community Development LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A NOT TO SCALE 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION II IlFTAII DRAWING NO. 38 OF 57 / • PLOTTED BY: m4lamol Ej LEGEND: 1 '—O FENCE CANOPY PLAN NO SCALE UNITS OF FENCE FABRIC 6' HIGH TYPE 1 COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN ES-2 ATTACHED TO SOUTH SIDE OF CANOPY FOR EN1RE LENGTH OF CANOPY. SEE C—SHEER FOR ADDITIONAL FENCE LENGTH BEYOND CANOPY. GRAVEL TOP RAIL (TYP) END RAIL (TYP) 2'—O GRAVEL 1— UNE/END POST NO FENCE FABRIC ON NORTH SIDE OR ENDS OF CANOPY CLEARANCE END RAIL 1i" SCH 40 — — TOP RAIL 1i6' SCH 40 ® END POST 2:6' SCH 40 - O UNE POST 2%. SCH 40 1% FENCE MESH. BLACK VINYL COATED TO 9 GAUGE F1NSH NOTES: 1. ALL POSTS, RAILS AND FABRIC SHALL BE POWDER —COATED BLACK. 2. SEE WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 FOR ATTACHMENT OF FENCE FABRIC TO POSTS. 10* MIN SHOULDER PAVED TRAIL CONCRETE POST BASE (END POST ONLY) FENCE CANOPY SECTION iA1 NO SCALE — A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN K. BRAATEN CHECKED IE M YI ITA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2DT-1 JOB No. _ . _ SHOULDER CLEARANCE EXISTING GROUND ENGINEERING. PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES z a. FE PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A r ROOT BARRIER DETAIL NO SCALE c, ADDITIONAL DEUMBING AND PRUNING OF TREES AND SHRUBS WILL APPLY TO THIS AREA SEE SECDON 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. w z \ 7 LL a\ 10' MIN 2 GRAVEL SHOULDER PAVED TRAIL SURFACE ROOT BARRIER, ANGLED TO DEFLECT NEW ROOT GROWTH. INSTALL LENGTH OF MATURE TREE DIAMETER PLUS 5 FEET. ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE UMfS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. /C= ROOT PRUNING ZONE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING N0. 39 OF 57 DETAILS 1"1 A Friday, February 05, 2016 C: \PM X\Temp \AcPublleh_6372\ BLOCK WALL UNIT 18"H X 46'W X 41'D (1ExiURED EXTERIOR FACE) EXISTING GROUND TO DAYLIGHT - - - DRAIN PIPE / 6 IN. DIA SEE WALL PROFILES FOR EMBEDMENT - 6 IN. 45' BEND u F.- SEE SHEET CS1 FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WALL OFFSETS COATED CHAIN LW FENCE OR BLOCK, AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS. UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT SEE DETAIL 2 12• MIN 4' MIN LIMIT OF STRUCTURE GE01'ORILE FOR EXCAVATION CLASS A UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE INCL HAUL DRAINAGE INFILL GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIA WRAPPED IN CONSTRUCTION GEOTTD(TILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SLOPE TO DRAIN. J 6' LEVELING PAD (CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE) GRAVITY BLOCK WALL DETAIL 1"=2' CLEANOUTS SHALL BE LOCATED IN GRAVEL SURFACE AREAS AND BE EQUIPPED WITH A UTILITY BOX AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. FINISHED GRADE 6 IN. WYE NSIRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE. UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DNM. INSTALL UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUTS AT ENDS OF WALLS, BENDS, AND MAX 100' SPACING. UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT DETAIL n 1"=2' BACKFILL FOR GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PREMOLDED JOINT FLLER 3 0 EXPANSION JOINT A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH AT SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME Q AA d4.IFS: 1. LXPANSIUN JINNI ALUM., UKNLWAT CLNILKUNL. 1D MAXIMUM SIAUNU WHEN DRIVEWAY WIDTHS EXCEED 3D'. 2. PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PATTERNED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE 6" CONCRETE CLASS 4000 AND 4' CRUSHED SURFACE BASE COURSE. 6x6x10 WWM SHALL BE INSTAL I FIT AT 4• DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. BROOMED FINISH. PERPENDICULAR TO TRAIL TRAFFIC. 4" WIDE SMOOTH TROWELED PERIMETER FOR EACH 4'x4' SQUARE PATTERN. PAI ILKNEDD CONCRETE — DRIVEWAY, O l 4 b N CONTRACTION JOINTS 4' O.C. _ ADJUST SPADING EQUALLY AT END T PANELS Q ROAD rn 9 n0. DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIES SEE C SHEETS PLAN TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSSING (AT GRADE) DETAIL NOT TO SCALE EDGE OF PATTERNED CONCRETE OR RACK OF CURB RAMP 1/8" TO 1/4' ▪ ro • • 4 °CONTRACTION JOINT ENGINEERING . PIANNNG. EIAGRONAENTAL SCIENCES FIRST AND LAST POSTS. WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANS IPROJECT NAME EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER COMMERCIAL CONCRETE 10'-0" 10.-0" 12"0 MIN TASOIL AT POASE, TP LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A u ELEVATION PLAN 5" DIA SPLIT CEDAR POSTS, TYP, 3'-4'DIA. SPLIT CEDAR RAILS i f FINISHED GRADE MORTISE SECTION A SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 1.7s•, TYP 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r1CTA11 C u DRAWING NO. 40 OF 57 GREEN RIVER fl0 T / jGRN RIVER TRAIL t_ ��. -y- .. — _' ------ - iX ) l� /- s- -- .---•r�4 qp SAE N sy6` �f 400 1 FORT DENT PARK • y • PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 BL4Ciif RIVER HWM F iwdrr r fit- --- _ OHWM _ —_ '9k — Q-LINE t7c,-.�5I '\ /J 1� �F r --- i` l v y 1 ?i. r\ 1 F= _� F-- V -F F � F f F. FORT DENT PARK , TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATION FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES DIAMETER* OF TREE REMOVED (MEASURED AT HEIGHT OF 4.5 FEET FROM THE GROUND) NUMBER OF REPEMENT TREES �REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED NUMBER OF TREES TO REPLACE ONSITE 4-6 INCHES (SINGLE TRUNK); 2 INCHES (ANY TRUNK OF A MULTI —TRUNK TREE) 3 1 3 OVER 6-8 INCHES 4 2 8 OVER 8-20 INCHES 6 5 30 OVER 20 INCHES 8 2 16 TOTAL 10 57 V) CL Lr- CC w0 i 7-771 -IN 7+00j T __ ------- ------------------------------------------------ -1 ----------------- ------ SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 REVISIONS DA-E BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED•T ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT012000—MP JDR Nn. STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT �u656 �LL � AVENUE SLOE w.w.GTON arw.i5, c w w I CONSTRUCTION NOTES: O PLANTING AREA CLEARING AND GRUBBING. STAKE OR FLAG PROPOSED PLANTING AREA OMITS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STARTING CLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA LEAVE SOIL. IN PLACE SEE SPECIFICATION FOR LJST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. O COMPOST. PLACE 3' LAYER COMPOST OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA. O WOOD CHIP MULCH. PLACE 3- LAYER W000 CHIP MUCH. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MPG AND FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PLANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY RIPPING OR TIWNG THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24'. 3. PLANTING AREA UMITS AND INTERPWdT1NG LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITT EN CLEARING AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL 6E FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING ACTIVITY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPUNE AREA OF EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS. 5. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE, OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WRIT ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS UNITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, UMITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 7. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND OR WTM HAND—HELD POWER TOOLS. 8. PLANT DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS OR PRUNING SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WILL ENSURE THAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. 10. SELECTED PLANTINGS WLL MEET THE CURRENT AMERI:AN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LEGEND: URBAN CONSERVANCY BU w w WEILAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERLINE DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE EXISTING TREES S K X T EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED HABITAT LOG, SEE SHEET MP-6 BRUSHPILE, SEE SHEET MP-6 TILL AREA TO 24' DEPTH PLANTING QUANTITY TAB -THIS SHEET ONLY- 3YM130LI 11EM QUANTITY TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING NATIVE CONIFER TREES — SPACE 15' 0.C. DOUGLANATIVE I` WESTERN RED CEDAR 14 SITKA SPRUCE 10 O DECIDUOUS TREES — SPACE 15' 0.C. BIG—LEAF MAPLE 14 OREGON ASH 9 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PUNNING. ENVRONMENTAL SCENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A MITIGATION PLAN DRAWING NO. 49 OF 57 am -%A CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PLOTTED BY: mllemal DATE Friday, February OS, PATH: C: \PM%\Temp\AcPubll r z In m m to mi W \BLACK RIVER ,PCB 1 - L-� tbp Pi _ �CkR�V�R NA* • „4.1,7%,,,:;77.44,r174,--: ♦iii�' '�►i� #4 � =40`4:9,47d ii-'���►i! ego PLAN •�ii��r�$�:'�g;��`!L��<�:�i� j�'iu •" • SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 COnON o A LINE 8+00 iF r-� 00 U 0= rcoustE vt,A1 ••••4,40.-.•-- _- _ �, :=%•o••m••••m••m••••i••i. •,1••m*.s••- ____:_*.rww.._,�••••••••••••• ••��••••4**41•01m•••��,•••••�•:����•.,P4PA 4 o ol**m�•,•��mm••••••••••m••mm•••m•••••., ►���ss`a•�• •m.�� -z •min •m ••• ••* 1 �, � :-��4*��:., �: �.r.•, �•; -•�a►i• �,,4; .�• mi• •• mi•••• •i• mii• •ii• •, •••4,4444•►.r„I:rc•s•.♦•••m•••i••i••i••i• ,�,-1 • 44.0 ••my***4 �,44 4m m v��• •••. •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• V�Ilg�•••••••4.4 � �: 31•m•••••••• `���l�i��11�1 •••••••••••••>•••••••.41•114 ,- _---> >; •4'441*•iy ••44 ••!�•••••••N•N1 �1g`T ••e••••�••iiit-iirogia,444/44,1,14/•••••• ••• *1& ***Ar ar -. ste:AriaticaAtitake- ,,._IV "AMErdir.M11 / 12+00 +OQ� �\\ 11; NMo4MIlTi=o,1-emsWWI" �- c c _____ '�„i;,_. /-_ _,---t_w- 'y-c_ i?) l'"'�— !' PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON ONE INCH AT FULL. SCALE. IFNOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AIN 1=1:41 ENGINEERING. PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LEGEND: - URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER w u/ WETLAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERUNE • DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED HABITAT LOG, SEE SHEET MP-6 BRUSHPILE. SEE SHEET MP-6 TILL AREA TO 24" DEPTH • I STRAW WATTLE BLACK ECEIVED MAR 17 2016 Community Development IPROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A u V MIIRWtlpUN t.LGYt1NO A•ty ttRV661N1r. 3T)wtL VR Wit" PROPOSED PLANTING AREA MIS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STARTING CLEARING WORK CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA. LEAVE SOIL IN PLACE SEE SPECIFICATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. 0 COMPOST. PLACE 3" LAYER COMPOST OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA OWOOD CHIP MULCH. PLACE 3" LAYER WOOD CHIP MULCH OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MP6 AND FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PLANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY RIPPING OR TIWNG THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24". 3. PLANTING AREA OMITS AND INTERPIANRNG LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED N THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. All PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN CLEARNG AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CIckRINC ACTIVITY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPUNE AREA OF EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS. 5. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE. 0R SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS UMRS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTMIIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, UNITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 7. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND 0R WITH HAND-HELD POWER TOOLS. 8. PLANT DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS OR PRUNING SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WILL ENSURE THAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTEES ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. 10. SELECTED PLANTINGS WILL MEET THE CURRENT AMERIF.AN STANDARD ,OR NURSERY STOCK. PLANTING QUANTITY TAB - THIS SHEET ONLY - SYMBOL ITEM QUANTITY STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING AREA i MEE HEETINFO MA FNOR ORE I MORE INFORMATION BUFFER VEGETATION BVC1 CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA 21,223 SF TREES - SPACE 12' 0.C. VINE MAPLE 17 BI MAPLE 9 PAPER BIRCH 9 SIIKA SPRUCE 9 UUUGLAS FIR 17 JNACIHC WILLOW 26 31TKA WILLOW 26 SIFJNN NL.0 CEDAR 17 SHRUBS - SPACE 4' O.C. BEAKED HAZELNUT 60 BLACK HAWTHORN 60 OCEANSPRAY 60 INDIAN PLUM 119 CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 60 NOOTKA ROSE 179 THIMBLEBERRY 179 COMMON SNOWBERRY 179 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITICtATI(1A1 PI AM u DRAWING NO. 50 OF 57 / GATE Friday, February 05, 2016 11,15 E 1 )0? 1//' CH KEEP WOOD CHIP MUL MULCH OFF OF STEMS BACKFlLL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AR POCKETS PLANT AT SAME IEVET. AS GROWN. TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE LEVEL WITH FlMSH GRADE III=I�MIT-F7-II-: 11=. i LPLANTING HOLE TO BE 2 X DW OF ROOTBALL SHRUB AND SMALL TREE PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE — TYPICAL TREE AND SHRUB SPACING DETAIL Iof FINISHED GRADE EXISTING SOL TREE NOTE: PLANT SHRUBS IN SINGLE SPECIES GROUPS OF 7 TO 12 PLANTS EACH PLANT TREES IN SINGLE SPECES GROUPS OF 1 TO 5 PLANTS EACH. NO SCALE — CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOTE: STARE ALL TREES 3' AND TALLER. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH- KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS n NO SCALE — "BVC" HEMLOCK/FIR STAKE, 2" D. (1 PER TREE) DRIVEN INTO UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL MIN 24" DEPTH BACKFlLL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AR POCKETS SEE PLANT MATERIAL UST FOR SIZE AND TYPE LEAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO BUDS EXPOSED TAMP SOL AROUND CUTTING -1 AMENDED NATIVE SOIL SEE DETAILO �. LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION DETAIL REVISIONS DA'E BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FLE NAME BL1521084PAT01200C—MP NO SCALE — STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS PLANTING NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE TO DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTNRIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, OMITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED. 2. MMGATKN PLANTING PLANS REPRESENT A CONCEPTUAL PLANT LAYOUT. FINAL PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 3. USE DAILY HAND TOOLS TO CLEAR AND CULTIVATE SOIL UNDER THE CANOPY (WITHIN AND 5' OUTSIDE THE DRIPUNE) OF EXISTNG TREES. 4. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR. PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPLIED BY COMMERCIAL NURSERIES THAT SPECWJZE IN PLANTS NATIVE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. PLANT SUBSTRUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL EIY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 5. MITIGATION PLANTING SHALL TAKE PLACE DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 1ST TO MARCH 1ST). PLANTING MAY BE ALLOWED AT OTHER TIMES AFTER REVEW AND WRITTEN APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF ALL DEBRIS AND EXCESS SOIL OCCASIONED BY THIS PROJECT. FINISHED GRADE 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BACKFlLL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AR POCKETS EXISTING SUBGRADE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL DETAIL NO SCALE — SEE SPECIAL. PROVISIONS FOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS BRUSH PILE DETAIL NO SCALE 15' TO25' HABITAT LOG DETAIL 12" TO 18" DIA. LOGS. STAKE LOCATION OF LOG PLACEMENT WHERE INDICATED IN PLANS ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS BEFORE LOG PLACEMENT \v\F NOTE: LOGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM 110-ta FLAGGED BY ENGINEER FROM ONSITE WITHIN PROJECT CLEARING OMITS. NO SCALE EXISTING GRADE ENGINEERING. PLANNING_ EINNONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME PLANT MATERIAL LIST B. ALL DIMENSIONS FOR USTED HEIGHT. LENGTH AND CONTAINER SIZE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 9. EXISTING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES AND NOT SHOWN TO BE RE —VEGETATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTORED AND SEEDED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLANT ANY NATIVE WOODY VEGETATION DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH SPECIES PROVIDED IN THE PLANT MATERIAS UST AT 1:1. 10. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SITE CONDMONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH AFFECTED WORK. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING PLANTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION OF PLANTING FOR THE PROJECT. COUNTY WLL MAKE PROVISIONS FOR WATERING AS NEEDED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD AFTER THE FIRST YEAR. QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN SIZE / CONDITION NOTES/ SPACING BIM 67 ACER CIRCINATUM • VINE MAPLE 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B STAKE PROPOSED TREE LOCATIONS N OPEN INFILL AREAS WTININ PLANTING AREAS 106 ACER MACROPHYLLUM * BIGLEAF MAPLE 1" CAL. / COAT. OR B&B 21 BETULA PAYRIFERA • PAPER BIRCH 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 9 FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA • OREGON ASH 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 66 PICEA SITCHENSIS • SITKA SPRUCE 3' NT. / COAL OR B&B 46 POPULUS BALSAMIFERA • BLACK COTTONWOOD 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 156 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZESII • DOUGLAS FIR 3' HT. / CONT. OR B&B 84 SAUX LUCIDA • PACIFIC WILLOW 1" X 3' LIVE STAKE CUTTING 84 SAUX SITCHENSIS • STTKA WILLOW 1" X 3' LIVE STAKE CUTTING 84 THUJA PUCATA • 3' M. / CONT. OR B&B WESILNN RED CEDAR SHRUBS 248 CORYLUS CORNUTA BEAKED HAZELNUT 1 GAL COW. STAKE PROPOSED SHRUBS IN OPEN I -AN AREAS WRHN PLANTING AREAS 246 CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII BLACK HAWTHORN 1 GAL CONT. 336 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY 1 GAL CONT. 511 OEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS NDIAN PLUM 1 GAL CONT. 499 MYRICA CAIJFORNICA CAUFORMA WAX MYRTLE 1 GAL CONT. 919 ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 1 GAL CONT. 608 RUBUS PARVIFLORUS THIMBLEBERRY 1 GAL CONT. 905 SYAIPHORICIARRPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY 1 GAL CONT. .NOTE' • REPLACEMENT TREES. DECIDUOUS TREES ARE 1" CALIPER AND CONIFEROUS TREES AT 3' HEIGHT ARE COUNTED AS EQUIVALENT FOR 1" OF CALLIPER REPLACEMENT FOR TREES REMOVED BY PROJECT. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS DRAWING NO. 54 OF 57 Friday, February 05, A 1 MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE MITIGATION 15 TO REPLACE THE HABITATS AND FUNCTIONS LOST AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION WOULD ACCOMPUSH THIS BY ENHANCING 0.49 ACRE OF WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE STREAM BUFFER AT MITIGATION SITES 1 AND 2. SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FORMULATED TO ACHIEVE THIS RESULT ARE PRESENTED BE.OW. MITIGATION GOAL COAL: ENHANCE 0.49 ACRE OF WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER TO NATIVE FORESTED UPLAND. ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS GOAL IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC MATTER BY PLANTING TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE ENHANCED BUFFER; INCREASE WILDUFE HABITAT; AND IMPROVE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BY PLANTING WITH A VARIETY OF NATIVE RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES. MITIGATION OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OBJECTIVE 1: ESTABLISH A MINIMUM OF 0.49 ACRE OF FORESTED WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF FORLSILU STREAM BUFFER BY PLANTING NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS. PERFORMANCE STANDARD•. YEAR 1 SURVIVAL OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIES IN ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS WILL BE AT LEAST 80 PERCENT. YEAR 3 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES WILL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 35 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFTER AREAS. YEAR 5 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES WILL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS. OBJECTIVE 2: UMIT INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES THROUGHOUT THE MITIGATION SITE PLANTING AREAS. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEARS 1-5 HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, CUTLEAF BLACKBERRY (RUBUS LACINBTUS), SCOTCH BROOM (CYTISUS SCOPARIUS), BUTTERFLY BUSH (BUDDLEJA SP.), POISON HEMLOCK (CONIUM MACULATUM), CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE), BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE), AND REED CANARYGRASS WILL NOT EXCEED 20 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. OBJECTNE 3: PROVIDE UPLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: INCREASE IN AREAL COVER OF NATIVE WOODY SPECIES IN THE PLANTED BUFFER, AS MEASURED IN OBJECTIVE 1 TO BE USED AS A SURROGATE TO INDICATE INCREASING MEDIAE FUNCTIONS. OBJECTIVE 4: PROTECT THE MITIGATION SITE FROM ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCE. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEARS 1-5 CONDUCT YEARLY QUALITATIVE MONITORING TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF THE SITES DURING THE 5-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD FOR HUMAN DISTURBANCE INCLUDING BUT NOT UMFTED TO FILLING. TRASH. AND VANDALISM. 2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 2.1 MONITORING THE MITIGATION AREAS WOULD BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WOULD ENSURE THAT THE BMPS ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS, AND THE ON -SITE CONSTRUCTION WORK (INCLUDING EARTHWORK AND PLANTING) WOULD BE COORDINATED TO ENSURE THAT THE SDE IS CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED. AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, AN 'AS -BUILT MITIGATION REPORT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA WITHIN 1 MONTH OF MIGATION INSTALLATION. POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OF THE MFIIGATION AREAS WOULD BE PERFORMED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD BY QUALIFIED BIOLOGISTS. MONITORING WOULD BE PERFORMED QUARTERLY THE FIRST YEAR AND ANNUALLY FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MITIGATION ARE BEING MET. A COMBINATION OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MONITORING ACTIVITIES WOL D BE USED TO ASSESS THE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PROPOSAL ACTIVITIES WOULD INCLUDE CONDUCTING SITE VISITS TO MONITOR UNNATURAL SITE DISTURBANCE. TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT, AND COLLECTING DATA FOR THE QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA FOLLOWING EACH MONITORING EVENT. APPROPRIATE CONTINGENCY MEASURES WLL BE DEVELOPED, AS NEEDED. BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL TO ENSURE THAT THE SITES DEVELOP HEALTHY VEGETATION THAT MEETS THE OBUGATONS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED PERMITS. REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 2.1.1 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING THE FOLLOWING BULLETED ITEMS DESCRIBE THE METHODS TO BE USED FOR THE QUANTITATIVE MONITORING. MONITORING SCHEDULE, AND REPORT DEADUNES. • THE MITIGATION SAES WILL BE ASSESSED BY AN APPROPRIATE QUANTITATIVE VEGETATIVE COVER FIELD ASSESSMENT ODOLO Y. THE UNE INILIGLAX I METHOD WLL BE USED FOR DETERMINING PERCENT AREAL COVER FOR WOODY AND INVASIVE SPECIES. • QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENTS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME METHOD IN EACH CONSECUTIVE MONITORING YEAR. • QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENTS WILL BE PERFORMED BETWEEN JUNE 15 AND SEPIEMBER 15 OF EACH MONITORING YEAR. • MONITORING REPORTS WILL BE SENT TO AGENCIES REQUIRING MONITORING REPORTS BY FEBRUARY 15 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. •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iffizsini ENGINEERING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RECEIVED MAR 172016 Community Development 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IPROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A II M!T!(:ATI(1A1 AI(1T=C I I DRAWING NO. 55 OF 57 GREEN RIVER GREt:N RIVER TRAIL PLAN SC611 N PEE'E 0 \\,. [ti,1y • �� BWCKER 1 f \��. ---6,____ wl �_la **II_ •Qf_ ,•1_17-(71:1 Li____...----11",- -L 171:(4 um WI,t s'a.-.,,ti11E .:-.. __-_-°''*:: .__°"=—w`va >- _ ii.: -�� `• iii la i 1 I� 1° tU IEa IW 1W w u A4JNE ��.• � . � � Q 1 FORT DENT PARK PLAN PES, 0 SWENSON a M1 SKNSON «0. N.tuu 40 01100161 ••01.1. 1,*4GOROARMv 'WI O61PA1p1MG- MP -Lam-DS114/2G1 qv 2016 FORT DENT PARK TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATION FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES 441(701• Of 112E lN0Aa*f0 .WC.C* M FRAMER NRR CP MOW C MO15 FEE, nam M 410u901 RS1ACFKNI 1O.T5 REOU62O TRUES 4 E REWMD 1W2ES TO RD4CF O6TAR 1-6 PICKS (OM= 1164114 2 WOO OW WOK Of A WT-WLIM 71103 3 F 3 OYFl2 6-S RKMS 1 2 5 OVER 6-20 KCMES 41 5 30 OVER 20 1101E5 6 2 16 1OMK 10 57 i_P1-.____ _______-- -____i PIPOJECY LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT* GREEN RIVER ETAL TO RICHES AVE SW CONSTRUCTION NOTES: • PLANINGPLANINGWS GLOM ARM a OOPC STME a PVC M OO=O RAMC 00* t11*15 Fc. Na aML or MOM *EOKYNINNT PRIOR 10 51MI1110 NA*MI *OM. CUM NW ORaS Mam NO TIMVE Mt DISPOSE 85 A11 4+10M131 YE6C1101 61 1MS RM511G WA UAW SOIL R PLACE. SEE SPECNC TTCM FOR UST Of EMIMRD Luton* CI COMPOST RKC 5' 1A0E11 COMPOST OM M DM • S*6ACE C1 11O RMi160 ART 0 16000 CHF W4CN RACE P WEN *COO CHO W004 Qf1�1 -1•FI �a+SM {rR- S Iy �•UC47.1A1a.-41A GENERAL NOTES: 1 SEE 51QT I!6 OM FOR RMRNC EMIRS MD KO22N(N15. 2 LOOSEN NW S065 W OAMRG MVO COUAC20 5t DOV67MK11:11 REIMRS 6f IMAM TO TRLNG THE AU 10 A DEPIN Q 21' 3 RMRN' MLA MOO ARo NaewW.4S EDCAIOM S4NLE RE AM© M M MO AM AMROSO OF PR4R41 *LRMS5MAOK POOR 10 PLVITRO. At/ PIMPS 10 K SAKO 00 N OACRD MOM C1LNONa AND ammo WAS *R0 Of RAG44v OT MELT RF)RKSD ME MOM POMP 5 OM MVP TO SUM Of WARM CM, . 147E ONLY SOLO TOOLS MC KINODS SKN 009RING 01547E THE 06RME MLA Of COME TREES MO 01.403 5 MY CNMCLS TO "UM WEAK, UML. OR SPACRO MUST Of MPREMO MOOR TO R15TNIATON DOPi6aKCt REPM',CMA1K 6 OCOOR6 OR SMALL 21020E TO RR1 ON SR MIN ERQSER Axo 110103ST TO 0SWT5 MOPS Of RORP 20 110075 0OMS6X,C70I ACOUR6 !HMI. Rm COW10R* Un5 ACCESS JCS Of *DOLL 110 MITHDOS PPS APP16M0 6t M OOKtf REMICSENTATME >. ROOM of 0/9z54* 95403 S041 Et OAR 56 RWO CA MR NANO-NELO PD001 7001 6 PERM OSRO FROM MMNK Of MOVE RAMS OR MMHG 0WI OL ROMP MOH M VIE MO COMP 1K Noma 9. Of P40KG ARL/S M1 SC 1OI00150 WOW NO 0100 W6IWILT:YI. WOK CONSTOATCN, EW5601 ME MLA OM MST WAOfMM PARCOCCS AR[ 054XK0 m 11111*A2C 1VAC25 O. SUM RANhCS ML KE1 THE P AKM 64000.M1 SLWOM6 fat 0Rf6(RT SOCK LEGEND: O*NN CM06WCY *VILER COCOMM MD. MIERUR •••••••-•-••••• • DESRA41 *307*1CN Oa t 5X6110 O@5 EX67111G TREES 10 EE RCKM6 100170 4.04. SEE SHEET YP-11 SR✓YNLL SFL SHEET 1v-R d ILL ARA 14 24' OEM PLANTING QUANTITY TAB t5a_1n THIS SHEET ONLY- 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLAN AtOF52 MP1 (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come Postage Certified Fee Return Reciept Fee Endorsement Required) 3estrIcted Delivery Fee indorsement Required) Total Postas ent To $ Postmark Here Department of Ecology NW Regional Office nailing receipt inique identifier for your maiipiece ecord of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years lent Reminders: rtified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail® or Priority rtified Mail is not available for any class of international mail. e INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail uables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail. • an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide pr ivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a I peipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cov . Endorse maiipiece "Return Receipt Requested". To receive a fee wan uplicate return receipt, a USPS® postmark on your Certified Mail rec uired. an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addresE iressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the maiipiece w iorsement "Restricted Delivery". postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired, please present th at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certifie (asranat{/ ZOOZ eunr'00e u+ ,I.I 1 LL/ V It'll Li./ I VV1/lL VLI\Y IVY , utt •y rirst-t.iass man Postage & Fees PP USPS Permit No. G. C' • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • City of Tukwila Dept. Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, 'WA 98188 omplete items 1, 2,•and 3. Also complete am 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. rint your name and address on the reverse D that we can return the•pard to you. ttach this card to the back of the mailpiece, r on the front if space permits. ' rticle Addressed to: Department of Ecology' NW Regional Office 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 A. Signature X ❑ Age ❑ Adc C. Date of C B. Received by (Printed Name) D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type ` i erCertified Mail ❑ press Mall ❑ Registered turn Receipt for Merch ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. .,/III 1 LU V 11\1LJ 1 VJ1/1L VLf\V IVL WA 980 0 .AUG'16 rirst-Mass mau Postage & Fees P USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DVL 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD, STE 100 TUKWILA WA 98188 5111plete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete . ,f 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Olt your name and address on the reverse that we can return the card to you. tach this card to the back of the mailpiece, on the front if space permits. title Addressed to: Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 • r A. Agnature ❑ Ager ❑ Addr _C. Date of Dr yB. Recelvgtf irrriated, f? 7 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service TypekerGertifted ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail f'ReturrYReceiptfor Merche t .o.D. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A SITE APN: 2323049001 APPROVED PARENT PROJECT NO: PL16-0014 PROJECT NO: L16-0017 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION July 27, 2016 TO: Jason Rich, King County DNR, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Agencies with Jurisdiction All Parties of Record This letter is the notice of decision and is issued pursuant to the Permit Application Types and Procedures section of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.104.170) on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L16-0017 Applicant: Jason Rich, King County DNR Type of Permit: Shoreline Substantial Development Variance Project Description: Shoreline variance from the Shoreline Master Program standard for 18-foot wide trails ((TMC 18.44.100C. (2)). The City of Tukwila staff made a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who after holding a public hearing made a recommendation to the Department of Ecology. The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval to the Department of Ecology, which issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. Location: North end of Fort Dent Park including parts of the UP and BNSF railroad corridors; Tax parcels: 2323049001; 7229500360; 7229500340; 2323049003; 2323049005. Associated Files: L16-0016, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; City of Renton files: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Shoreline Environment Urban Conservancy Page 1 of 2 �2nn c ,.rL t R ,.1 ,. 1 c..:*,. A, 1 rw144. D/ . ,. 7n4 A21 24711. L'.. ')TLC A21 244C Shoreline Variance: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Notice of Decision L16-0017 Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning Heavy Industrial and Low Density Residential with Public District: Recreation Overlay II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City of Renton SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Hearing Examiner has determined, following an open record hearing, that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Variance does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has recommended approval of that application to the Department of Ecology based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. No conditions of approval are recommended. The Department of Ecology has final decision making authority for shoreline variances. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 3 decision pursuant to TMC 18.104.010. One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Variance 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 Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206-431-3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. //Wei Department of Community Development City of Tukwila TUKWILA HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Applicant: File Number: Associated Files: Application: Location: SEPA Determination: Shoreline Environment Designation: Comprehensive Plan/ Zoning Designation: Recommendation: Public Hearing: Exhibits: King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources L16-0017 (Project File PL16-0014) L16-0016, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Shoreline Variance to reduce width requirements, from 18 feet to 16 feet, for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail The site is located along the south bank of the Black River and the east bank of the Green River, beginning at the north end of Fort Dent Park from Tukwila's eastern City limit, along the east edge of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the Green River Trail. Mitigated Determination of Non -significance issued by City of Renton as lead agency, on January 11, 2016. Urban Conservancy Low Density Residential and Heavy Industrial The Department of Community Development recommends approval. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the application on June 7, 2016, at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. The following exhibits were entered into the record: A. Department Staff Report dated May 25, 2016 with Attachments 1-4 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe email dated May 11, 2016 3. City of Renton letter dated May 10, 2016 4. City of Renton SEPA staff report and SEPA Determination Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 2 of 7 The following persons testified at hearing: City: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner Dave Johnson, Parks Department Applicant: Jason Rich, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources Introduction The applicant, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources, seeks a Shoreline Variance from the trail width standard of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), from 18 feet (14-foot wide paved area with a two -foot shoulder on both sides), to 16 feet (12-foot wide paved area with a two -foot shoulder on both sides). Represented at the hearing were the Tukwila Department of Community Development, by Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner; and the Applicant, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources, by Jason Rich. No member of the public testified at the hearing. All references to TMC or Code refer to the Tukwila Municipal Code. After due consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application. Findings of Fact 1. King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources seeks a shoreline variance to allow development of a 1.2-mile portion, Segment A, which is a portion of the planned 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The Lake to Sound trail will ultimately link Lake Washington to Puget Sound as part of a regional trail system. Segment A would connect to the Green River Trail, the Interurban Trail to the south, and to the future Cedar River Trail. The Lake to Sound project, including Segment A, is proposed to be a 12-foot-wide trail with 2-foot wide shoulders. 2. Segment A is located in the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Segment A would be located on what is currently an unimproved trail/gravel road which extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road, and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park; see Attachment 1 to the staff report. 3. The site is designated as Urban Conservancy. The purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and to restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. 4. The 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction area is divided into a buffer area and a non -buffer area. The Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer is 100 feet landward of the OHWM for leveed portions of the river, and 125 feet landward of the OHWM where no levee is present. There is a levee along the Green River, but not along the Black River edge of the project. Non -water -oriented !- J Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 3 of 7 recreational activities are a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy Environment, both in the buffer and non -buffer areas. 5. The City of Renton has approved a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance for Segment A. 6. The portion within the City of Tukwila is subject to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program, which sets a minimum width of 18 feet for pedestrian trails, comprised of a 14-foot-wide paved area and two feet of shoulder on either side; TMC 18.44.100.C. Segment A thus requires a variance from the trail width standard in the Tukwila Master Shoreline Plan. 7. A SEPA Determination of Non -significance was issued by the City of Renton as SEPA lead agency on January 11, 2016. A public comment period for the related shoreline permits ended on May 13, 2016. Three email comments were received and are not directed specifically at the width variance, but will be considered by the City in its review of the shoreline substantial development permit. No member of the general public testified or submitted comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing on June 7, 2016. 8. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies and implementation strategies addressing the City's trails and recreational facilities. See, e.g., Goal 6.1 regarding calls for parks, recreation opportunities and open spaces close to home and/or work with interconnecting off-street trails;; Policy 6.1.8, strive for a safely -designed and maintained trail system; Policy 6.1.10, create a trail system that links significant community focal points, and links the lowland and upland trails at strategic points. The City's 2009 Walk and Roll Plan also shows Segment A as a planned future trail through Fort Dent Park. 9. The City's Shoreline Master Program is incorporated by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and addressed in Element 5 of the Plan. The Element includes goals and policies addressing recreational use and access in the shoreline, as well as implementation strategies, including the Walk and Roll Plan. 10. TMC 18.44.130.D contains the approval criteria for a shoreline variance permit. 3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 4 of 7 a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief f The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 11. TMC 18.44.130.D.5 provides: a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within any sensitive area may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property; (2) The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under TMC Section 18.44.130. D.4., "Approval Criteria; " and (3) The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. 12. WAC 173-27-140 provides the following criteria for all development: Review criteria for all development. (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. (2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. 13. WAC 173-27-170(4) includes the following additional criteria for granting of a shoreline variance permit: Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 5 of 7 In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. 14. WAC 173-27-200 provides that: (1) After local government approval of a conditional use or variance permit, local government shall submit the permit to the department for the department's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The department shall render and transmit to local government and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. (2) The department shall review the complete file submitted by local government on conditional use and variance permits and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. The department shall base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a conditional use permit or variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the act and, except as provided in WAC 173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170. (3) Local government shall provide timely notification of the department's final decision to those interested persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this application pursuant to TMC 18.104.010. Under that section, shoreline variances are Type 3 decisions. Under RCW 90.58.140 and WAC 173-27-200, the state Department of Ecology shall review a shoreline variance permit and issue a final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the permit within thirty days of submittal by local government to Ecology. 2. In order to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate that all of the criteria for a shoreline variance are met. 3. The first criterion is that strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the City's SMP. The proposed use is a reasonable use that is not prohibited by the SMP. The proposed Segment A trail would be 12 feet wide with two -foot shoulders on either Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 6 of 7 side, for a total of 16 feet. The strict application of the 18-foot trail width standard (16 feet with two -foot shoulders on each side) would result in greater impacts on existing trees and more cut and fill in the buffer zone areas. Requiring the 18-foot-wide standard at this location would also cause this segment to be substantially wider than the Green River trail (10 feet wide with two - foot shoulders on each side), and other portions of the Lake to Sound trail with which Segment A will connect. 4. The second criterion is that the hardship be specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions and the application of the SMP, not the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that because of these conditions the variance is necessary to provide the owner with the use rights and privileges permitted other properties in the vicinity and zone. 5. The design standard established for the larger regional project, the Lake to Sound trail network, is for a 12-foot wide paved trail with two -foot shoulders. Segment A will be connected with regional and local trails at this location, which are or will be narrower than the City's 18-foot width requirement. The location of Segment A is such that the narrower width is necessary in order for the trail to function as a connector with the other existing and planned trails. This criterion is met. 6. The next criterion is that the project design be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The reduced trail width and the trail's design would be compatible with other uses in the area, including other trails and recreational uses. The Comprehensive Plan and SMP encourage and contemplate trails, including Segment A. The reduction in width would not cause adverse impacts to the adjacent properties or the shoreline environment, and will likely reduce the trail's impacts. Impacts from the trail (as opposed to the variance for width) have been considered as part of the SEPA review and the shoreline substantial development approval for the trail segment. This criterion is met. 7. The next criterion is that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. The proposed variance for reduced width would not grant a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties. The width requirement applies only to recreational trails in the area, which would have an opportunity to seek variance relief if needed. 8. The variance must be the minimum necessary to afford relief. The two -foot reduction in width is needed to maintain Segment A's compatibility with the rest of the Lake to Sound trail and other trail connections, while reducing impacts such as removal of trees or clearing and grading activities within the shoreline. This criterion is met. 9. The next criterion is that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The reduced trail width is consistent with the County's design standards and, according to the applicant, would be consistent with AASHTO and WSDOT design standards for bicycle and pedestrian trails. The proposed width would be greater than the existing trail conditions at the site. No substantial detriment to the public interest would be caused by the variance. ( Hearing Examiner Decision L16-0017 Shoreline Variance Page 7 of 7 10. Under WAC 173-27-170(4), consideration is to be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. The proposed width of Segment A is part of a regional trail design for the Lake to Sound trail, and the City of Renton has already approved the proposed width of 12-feet with two -foot shoulders. Subsequent requests for similar variances related to like actions would need to meet the SMP and Code criteria. The cumulative impacts of requests for relief from trail width standards would not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment, and would remain consistent with the policies of the SMA. 11. Also under WAC 173-27-170(4), variances from the use regulations of a shoreline master program are prohibited. The variance relief requested is not from the use regulations of the Tukwila SMP, but is associated with a trail, which is a permitted use. 12. The proposal is consistent with WAC 173-27-140. The proposal is consistent with the SMA, and the SMP, and no new or expanded structure is associated with the requested variance. Decision The shoreline variance as to trail width, allowing a reduction in width from 18 feet to 16 feet, is hereby granted. Under RCW 90.58.140, the Department of Ecology shall render a final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a shoreline variance permit. Entered this 10th day of June, 2016. Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner Concerning Further Review TMC 18.44.040 provides that "Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board." BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF TUKWILA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on this date I sent true and correct copies of the attached Findings and Decision to each person listed below, or on the attached mailing list, in the matter of King County Dept of Parks and Natural Resources, Hearing Examiner file: L16-0017 in the manner indicated. Party Method of Service Moira Bradshaw /{ U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid Department of Community Development ❑ Inter -office Mail 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100 // E-mail Tukwila, WA 98188 ❑ Fax Moira.Bradshaw@Tukwila@WA.gov ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Legal Messenger Minnie Dhaliwal Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.gov Dated: June 10, 2016 Tiffany Ku Legal Assistant City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director DATE: NOTIFICATION: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER May 25, 2016 The Notice of Application and Public Hearing was mailed to the applicant; surrounding property owners and tenants; and agencies with jurisdiction on April 8, 2016 and posted on the site on April 7, 2016. FILE NUMBER: Project file: PL16-0014; Land Use file: L16-0017 ASSOCIATED FILES: L16-0016, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit APPLICANT: Jason Rich, for King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources REQUEST: LOCATION: SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: To reduce the width of the pedestrian trail from that adopted in Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program from 18 feet to 16 feet - 12 foot paved width with 2 foot soft shoulders on both sides. The City of Tukwila staff makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who after holding a public hearing makes a recommendation to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. At the north end of Fort Dent Park (also known as the Starfire Sports Complex) from Tukwila's eastern city limit along the east edge of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way to the Green River Trail. The project site is along the south bank of the Black River and the east bank of the Green River. Tax Parcel numbers: 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 722950-0350, 232304-9005, 722950- 0340; 232304-9003 Urban Conservancy Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DISTRICT: Low Density Residential and Heavy Industrial SEPA DETERMINATION: The City of Renton acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued on January 11, 2016 by the City of Renton. STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe E-mail dated Mayll, 2016 3. City of Renton Letter dated May 10, 2016 4. City of Renton SEPA Documents -SEPA Staff Report and SEPA Determination I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges (BNSF and Union Pacific) to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (See 90-percent plans - Attachment 1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides nonmotorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the :south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. Page 2 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L1.6-0017-Shoreline Variance Application UNINc. KING COUNT Y t Begin 5 Project l( t t'. $ FOR Gent Paris ett-?+ `, ,�and Stag re AG; ♦.. ;y Spotts Complex `;,,e� 1 CITY OF '_ 1 t E TUKWILA _. Mun Liner Krx}WagS Proposed Cubed Proposed Rest Area Y"_ I Concrete iii Proposed r Retaining Wail Recycling Plant J ` m` r Stack River Riparian Fore t Propowa oast Ann Slack River Pump Station I.< CITY OF REHTOtd SararEc Krug Couay. Ctt, or Renton, V+t W NU. MOOT. Leslend: Proposed Cdy Boundary Intl ArigrmKry ---t—t— Reload F3istirp Tral Parks and WDFYf Priority FlaDiat Area Waterworks Gardens End r- Project Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Lake to Sound Trod— Sn ,xntst Site Plan ofSegmentA of Lake to Sound Trail II. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011 that was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. A. Shoreline Environment Designation The shoreline environment designation for the project site is Urban Conservancy; the purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction is divided into a buffer area and non -buffer area. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment where a levee is present is 125 Page 3 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application feet and 100 feet where no levee is present. A levee exists along the Green River but not along the Black River edge of the project. Non -water oriented recreational facilities are a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy shoreline zone and in the buffer and non -buffer areas (TMC 18.44.050.B.1.d).) B. Trail Standards The Tukwila adopted trail standard is 18 feet wide paved trail (14 feet wide paved area with two feet of shoulder on both sides.) (Public Access to the Shoreline: TMC 18.44.100.C.2.) III. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: The Shoreline Administration section of the City's Zoning Code provides criteria for approval of a shoreline variance request (TMC 18.44.130.D.) The purpose of a shoreline variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards of the shoreline master program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the SMP regulations will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant. The SMP trail standard is codified in TMC 18.44.100.C.1. Applications for a Shoreline variance are processed as a Type 3 permit as outlined in the Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (TMC 18.104.) Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is forwarded to the Department of Ecology who make the final decision on a shoreline variance. Approval Criteria: A Shoreline Variance permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can respond in the affirmative to all six of the criteria (Shoreline Variance Permits, TMC18.44.130.D.4, which are listed below followed by the applicant's response. 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this Chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter; Applicant Response (drawn from both the response to the variance criteria and the variance narrative): The construction of a public trail is permitted in the Urban Conservancy Buffer per TMC 18.44.050; however, the trail size, as specified in 18.44.100 (C)(1) is incompatible with the 16-mile Lake to Sound Corridor project, which calls for a Page 4 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application 12-foot wide trail with 2-foot shoulders. This would result in incompatibility with the other multi -use portions of the regional trail system, and result in greater shoreline impacts than is necessary for a safe, functional trail. Staff Analysis: The reduction of the trail width from the City's adopted standard of 18 feet to 16 feet minimizes the impact on the existing trees as well as the amount of cut and fill in the river's buffer zone. The Green River trail, which will be joined at the west end of the project is 10 feet wide, with two foot shoulders on each side. 2. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. (Criteria for variance landward of OHWM) is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; Applicant Response: No special property characteristic or SMP requirement prevent the construction of this trail in the manner of adjacent properties or other like zoned properties in the shoreline jurisdiction. Rather, the City of Tukwila design standard for trail width (14-foot wide with 2-foot shoulders) is inconsistent with the proposed design of the planned Lake to Sound 16-mile regional trail network (12-foot wide with 2- foot shoulders). As a King County -driven project with regional significance, the proposed trail is sited in multiple jurisdictions including the cities of Tukwila, Renton, SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and King County. To provide continuity between the multiple jurisdictions, King County selected a trail design that is compatible with King County's 2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 2012), the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO 2004), the WSDOT Design Manual, and best professional judgment based on what we have seen work in other locations. To change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface. Page 5 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Staff Analysis: Staff concurs with applicant's response. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Applicant Response:: There are no inconsistencies with the proposed alignment ofSegmentA with the goals and policies contained within the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan. The majority of the proposed alignment ofSegmentA is located in a public recreation overlay as identified in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. It is compatible with several goals and policies as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan as described below: Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.1: Parks, recreation opportunities and open spaces that are close to home and/or work and that are interconnected by safe streets, off-street trails and public transportation. Goal 6.2: A Network of Green Spaces - Recreational amenities, historical sites, rivers, wetlands, creeks, and other natural resources that are connected to each other and neighboring networks of lands. This network defines Tukwila as a Northwest city, and includes visually significant bands of vegetation that contrast with the built environment. Policy 6.2.1: Non -motorized transportation links between network lands Shoreline Master Plan Please see Section 1.2.1 of this report for an understanding of the proposed trail's consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan. Page 6 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Staff Analysis: The trail width, while less than the City's adopted standard, provides a wider area than currently in use in the area. A 16 foot wide trail as opposed to an 18 foot wide trail reduces impacts to the shoreline environment and more trees are preserved by the reduced width. Mitigation for the impact of existing tree removal include the planting of trees and shrubs at the required ratios of the Tukwila Shoreline Overlay standards for vegetation protection and landscaping (18.44.080.B.4.) The new trees will be located on the water side of the river bank. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area; Applicant Response: The variance does not provide special privilege. It will result in a trail that is consistent with other connecting trail elements. Staff Analysis: The shoreline variance process is available to any applicant who believes the criteria apply to their project. Any variance request would be analyzed against the City's adopted SMP standards. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and Applicant Response: This reduction in trail sizing is the minimum necessary to afford relief, This variance requests to construct a 12-foot trail in lieu of a 14-foot trail in keeping with the vision of the Lake to Sound Feasibility Study, the design of the portion of SegmentA that extends into neighboring City of Renton, and the remaining, planned 16-mile multi -use segments of the Lake to Sound trail. As described previously, to change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface Staff Analysis: The relief from the Tukwila SMP adopted trail standard width is the minimum necessary to afford relief. Page 7 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Applicant Response„ This project is highly compatible with the surrounding uses. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. The proposed trail is also consistent with the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. Staff Analysis: In this instance, the public interest will not suffer a substantial detrimental effect by using a narrower trail width than from that adopted by the City of Tukwila. The trail width, while two feet less than the City's adopted standard, is still wider than current regional conditions and consistent with the width of the trail along its length. In addition, variances must also meet the two review criteria (WAC 173-27-140) that apply to all development. 1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. The proposed public trail and the improvements associated with the trail are permitted uses. The existing conditions of the shoreline are a lawn with a semi -formal landscape that includes trees planted linearly behind the sports field. An informal hard earth path providing an unimproved trail continues along the Black River shoreline and under the railroad tracks. Vegetation within the shoreline zone are a mix of natives, invasives and the plantings noted above. Page 8 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Looking east towards the BNSFrailroad bridge along approximate location of proposed trail. To the right is the fence for the sports fields and on the left is the Black River. The applicant has provided a mitigation report with goals and objectives to mitigate for any loss of ecological shoreline functions. Specifications for compliance with the Tukwila SMP will be reviewed and conditions may be placed as part of the Shoreline Substantial Development application review and decision process. 2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. The trail project will not involve any structure other than an asphalt trail that requires little to no grading and retention of the surrounding soil and fencing under the railroad tracks. The tallest elements will be the trees once they achieve a mature height (Sheet MP1, Attachment 1,) the new chain link fence and canopy under the railroad tracks (Sheet D3, Attachment 1) and the signage (See Sheet C15, Attachment 1) that will not exceed 3 feet in height. There are no residences in the vicinity whose view of the water wilt be obstructed. Page 9 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail Ll 6-0017-Shoreline Variance Application IV. COMMENTS: The public comment period closed on May 13, 2016 and three email comments were received. Response to the comments will be addressed as part of the review and decision on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. John Netter commented that he saw no issues with the plan. Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, provided comments (Attachment 2) that are summarized as follows: 1) The project removes trees greater than 4 inches in diameter thereby negatively impacting the temporal amount of wood regeneration. 2) The project will preclude or limit proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 identified in the Chinook Recovery Plan for WRIA 9. Picture of location for WR1A - 9 Project LG-17 Page 10 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Picture of Location for WRIA - 9 Project LG-18 3) Continue to provide full safe access for Tribal fishing at the site during project construction. The City of Renton comment letter (Attachment 3) requested the following conditions be applied to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit: 1) All construction activity stop if cultural resource artifacts are discovered during construction. Notification of concerned Tribes, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the City of Renton Planning Division. 2) Contractors working in Tukwila and hauling within Renton comply with City of Renton haul route hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. V. SEPA: The City of Renton acted as the SEPA lead agency. Part of Segment A is within the city limits of Renton. Renton issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on January 11, 2016. The SEPA determination, staff report and SEPA Checklist are Attachment 4. VI. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is consistent with the applicable shoreline variance criteria as follows: 1.) The strict application of the dimensional requirement of the Tukwila SMP would interfere with the County and City's effort to create a uniform paved trail system for users. 2.) A trail improvement of 18 feet versus the 16 feet would have a greater vegetation impact because of the existing trees along the shoreline and route for the trail. These existing conditions are not the result of the owners of the properties. The variance is Page 11 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application necessary for the project proponent to enjoy the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3.) The 16 foot wide trail will be compatible with other uses within this area and uses planned for the area and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The comments received are not related to the variance request. 4.) The variance of two feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and will be consistent with the trails extension in the City of Renton and exceed the width of the existing Green River trail, with which it intersects. Variances are reviewed on a case -by -case basis and is a process available to any applicant who believes they meet the approval criteria. 5.) The variance of two feet is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 6.) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect because the negative environmental impacts of a wider trail will be eliminated and the trail will be consistent with the system wide design/width. 7.) The specific facts of the trail project indicate that the hardship of an 18 foot standard is unnecessary when considering the purposes for which the trail standard was originally adopted. 8.) The project will not interfere with the character of the shoreline and will result in a long term over a short term benefit by increasing public access to publically owned areas of the shoreline and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. VII. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the shoreline variance to the Department of Ecology. Page 12 of 12 E m C: \PM%\Temp\AcPUGIeh_8372\ Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX Puget Sound Burien � � J Seattle Lake Washington t' Project Site Tu Tla Se Tac J 0 Kent 520 Bellevue • er LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE REVISIONS DAE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH A� T FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE_N AMA ___-__ __ •♦ CO 411 l .3003 74. s'D '" CITY OF TUKWILA cr BEGIN PROJECT �► f Rat ciai1w • Pt i 4 • UNINCORPORATED I KING I COUNTY --- CITY OF - RENTON Cc BLACK R PARIAN RIVE FOR T • • /'�a ♦-� 'V. END PROJECT 2 A 177far#1I _ �. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ENGINEERING .PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I I PROJECT NAME SW 7TH ST c\AJ 1F.41-. C+* LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A u vl • .T.,, —. .- Col-i iur Pj Deg eIcpment 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r+r‘\/co cucc r u DRAWING NO. 1 OF 57 NS It 30. ACP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PC POINT OF CURVE BOC BACK OF CURB PT POINT OF TANGENT BOW BACK OF SIDEWALK P/L PROPERTY UNE BP BEGIN PROFILE PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE BVCE BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE ELEVATION PUD PUBUC UTILITY DISTRICT BVCS BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE STATION PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION CB CATCH BASIN R RADIUS C&G CURB AND GUTTER RT RIGHT C/L CENTERUNE ROW or R/W RIGHT—OF—WAY CONC CONCRETE SD STORM DRAIN CONST CONSTRUCTION SDMH STORMWATER MANHOLE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SS SANITARY SEWER COR CITY OF RENTON STA STATION CP CONCRETE PIPE TDA THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA CSTC CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TEL TELEPHONE DIA DIAMETER TESC TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DI, DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE TYP TYPICAL E EAST, EASTING VC VERTICAL CURVE EOA EDGE OF ASPHALT VERT VERTICAL EOG EDGE OF GRAVEL W WATER EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT WS WATER SERVICE EP END PROFILE WSDOT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EVCE END VERTICAL CURB ELEVATION EVCS END VERTICAL CURB STATION EX, EXIST EXISTING FOC FACE OF CURB FL FLANGE, FLOWUNE G GAS GB GRADE BREAK HMA HOT MIX ASPHALT HORIZ HORIZONTAL ID INDENTIFICATION IE INVERT ELEVATION KC KING COUNTY LF UNEAR FEET LP LOW POINT LT LEFT ME MATCH EXISTING MIN MINIMUM MON MONUMENT N NORTH, NORTHING N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT NO. NUMBER NST NOT STEEPER THAN OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2C-G02-,1 03 INDEX TO DRAWINGS DWG NO. SHT NO. SHEET TITLE GENERAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 COVER SHEET ABBREVIATIONS AND SHEET UST LEGEND SURVEY CONTROL PLAN SURVEY CONTROL PLAN A —LINE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL C—UNE CONSTRUCTION BASELINE CONTROL B—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i S2 S3 S4 BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION BRIDGE FOUNDATION LAYOUT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PIERS 1 AND 2 BARUST MITIGATION 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MP6 MP7 MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLAN MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS MITIGATION NOTES TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 56 57 TC1 TC2 SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL SUBMIT WITH 95 PCT SUBMITTAL ENGINEERS.. PLANNING. ENWtONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NO. ABBREVIATIONS AND 2 OF 57 SHEET LIST no) February 05, 2016 8:53:46 Al PLOTTED BY: mtllemal DATE E LEGEND LEGEND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION ROW LINE RAILROAD C/L PROPERTY UNE CITY BOUNDARY UNE EASEMENT UNE FOUND MONUMENTS REBAR & CAP HUB & TACK PK NAIL PROPERTY CORNER STREAM BUFFER STREAM EDGE OF WATER WETLAND FLAG ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION DITCH UNE STORM DRAIN UNE CULVERT QUARRY SPALL CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 2 INLET PROTECTION SANITARY SEWER UNE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE O c1 SANITARY SEWER VAULT CLEANOUT SPLIT RAIL FENCE UNE RAILROAD C/L BARBWIRE FENCE UNE —_---- P/L CHAIN LINK FENCE UNE —••—••—S•••� ED 0 0 /40/ B B-- B OHWM SD • O `C ga CONTOURS MAJOR 10 CONTOURS MINOR 2 FILTER FABRIC FENCE—O—O--O—O— HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE N Y N CLEARING AND GRUBBING OMITS —es —a —cc —a — FILL UNE F F F CUT UNE c c c c- SAWCUT UNE /////////// ASPHALT EDGE CONCRETE LINE CURB AND GUTTER UNE EDGE OF PATCH EDGE OF GRAVEL JURISDICTIONAL. DITCH ROCKERY CONCRETE BARRIER HOG WIRE FENCE UNE WOOD GUARDRAIL GUY ANCHOR POWER POLE WITH UCHT FLOOD ucHT UTILITY POLE PP W/ UG DROP PP W/ UG DROP & XMFR OVERHEAD POWER POWER POWER VAULT POWER TRANSFORMER POWER MANHOLE POWER HANDHOLE POWER CABINET POWER RISER POWER METER SOLID LID J-BOX LUMINAIRE TELEPHONE VAULT TUEPHONE RISER TELEPHONE MANHOLE TELEPHONE • TV RISER TV 2-- FIBER OPTIC GAS VALVE CAS WATER UNE FIRE HYDRANT WATER METER WATER VALVE WATER BLOW OFF VALVE WATER POST INDICATOR SPRINKLER HEAD ROT=90 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY Pm F NauF PROPOSED EXISTING rr — U U U U U U U - POR 0^:,9 FR l3 LEGEND DESCRIPTION PROPOSED EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE Wi LAMP TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE TRAFFIC CONTROL LOOP (S0) TRAFFIC CONTROL CABINET PEDESTRIAN POLE MONITORING WELL SURFACE POST SIGN SKIP LANE UNE SOLID LANE UNE FOG UNE LEFT ARROW STRAIGHT ARROW RIGHT ARROW MAILBOX TREES WETLAND SYMBOL WETLAND BOUNDARY VEGETATION RETAINING WALL RIP RAP ROCKERY HANDICAPPED SYMBOL WHEELCHAIR RAMP BUILDING UNE CONCRETE STAIR UNE WOOD STAIRWAY ASPHALT PATH CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ENGINEERED SOIL MIX LANDSCAPE AREA RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING RESTORATION PLANTING AREA TEST PR OR BORE HOLE 117 Cc—T n'±y Ca.e�pm;;r,t 611=1/1 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RECCMENT A PROJECT NAME TP # OR BH-1 d r a-_ '• if 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I 1 int, wm I I DRAWING NO. 3 OF 57 BEGIN PROJECT STA 1+00.00A-LINE \ 2+00 ALINE KC PIRFIl NO 7229502360 KING warn' ]RM'T 36 RODEN PCIAANOS 4+00 KC PARCEL fO 2323049001 CRY OF DADO A NE 23-23-04 CITY OF TUKWIIA I D1 n Z__-74. m WI �9016 [11 / N=177351.98 III ' E=1291743.33 ELV=22.73 OI SET REBAR NO CAP MI • \ 1 ss 4 KC PARCEL ND. I 4 DAY OF 178 FQ 34 R 1 ! I Z..- SE 14-23-04 KC PARCEL N0. 77244500a50 13 1 946F IKC PARCEL N0. 2323049005 Era KC PARCEL ND. 1323049020 ONSF BEGIN C-LINE STA 201+00.00 KC PARCEL N0. 7224500340 ' OM. RR MO LAY. CO. LESSEE - OMR-7• ■ KC F•ra. N0. 771Y5003.A1 8+00 ION. RR NO NW. CO. LESSEE - 4 g. I / I 2 -------t-.<A� ..----1\J-`i\-`\ A / KC PARCEL N0. 37792E0117 COY OF RENTON KC 2204 N0. 44, 14230YA006... DW. RR NO NW. CO. LESSEE - LIFIR 4,1 / KC PAKCEL 11 N=176125.66 E=1290276.61 aV=27.80 FOUND 1--' BRASS DISK W/ PUNCH 0.5' DOWN CITY OF RENTON NW 24-23-04 SW 13-23-04 KC PNCEL N3.1323049093 an OF 1INRKA N=176607.11 E=1290388.76 aV=35.01 FOUND MON IN CASE N=176477.49 E=1290501.99 av=34.95 LOeTK BEGIN B4JNE 00+00 STA 99+94.19 KC PAWL NO. 1323049020 SW 13-23-04 KC PARCEL N0. 7229500310 ONG COUNTY PER ma REPORT END A -LINE STA 17+76.45 KC PAM- 1C• s 3//Y./119 �� DIY OF w s4 44 `25-.js±� �' --\ -72362 N=176395.57 E=1290884.66 -- \ aV=26.59 --„„i`, S NAIL \ .70 END C-LINE \ \ BN STA 206+50.00 i 11 KC PNLEL N0. 3779209119 `\ DIY OF RE700N REVISIONS DATE Y DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN K. BRAATEN CHECKED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FLE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CC-004- 005 / / / KC EPRDL NO \� 1323049012 ON OF RENICN SCALE IN FEET 0 100' 200' / co /AG / fQ ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME • SE 13-23-04 SCALE IN FEET 0 100' 200' KC PARCEL NO �- (00 1 -' a - �_J 1Z 9015 lJ E=1291310.30 10 ELV=30.68 . 11- SET REBAR NO CAP / 1-• anal+moN j / I LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A N=177033.12 SURVEY NOTES: 1. HORIZONTAL DATUM, BASIS OF MERIDIAN: GRID NORTH, WASHINGTON COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD83(91) HELD CITY OF RENTON MONUMENTS: HORIZONTAL AND STATIONS 1333 AND 1854 2. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 HELD CITY OF RENTON BENCHMARKS: BM#1333 AND BM#1854 3. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS CONDITIONS AND FEATURES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THIS TOPOGRAPHY IN OCTOBER, 2010. 4. CONVENTIONAL AND GPS SURVEY EQUIPMENT WAS USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SURVEY. ALL EQUIPMENT IS MAINTAINED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT STATE STATUTE. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SURVEY CONTROL PLAN DRAWING NO. 4 OF 57 i BEGIN PROJECT BP STA1+00 CJ1 h'�'�•r z l� -\ • GREEN RIVER TRAIL O BLACK RIVER IKc PARCEL N0. 7729500360 --_ ,\ 1 PL__ -- -OVERHEAD WATERLINE 37 RENTON SNORELANDS KC PARCEL ND. 7229500350 ---j 6NSF In CRT OF NMOU o TkAcr 36 RENn3N sxL>F IN Cr) rt W - - , ;\ i STA 1 OHWM • -__i— — ..---"........-1KC PARCEL N0. 7229500350 STA- 6g53-\PO'fT 1 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 1 , \` \ I I .1-,-. �f 'RC PARCEL NO-.23DM11 9001 / i l I KC PARCEI. I. 23230690D5 1.- 1 (1995 FIRM) \, `I \_ • z m REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME GI I C7i!MAD ATO ',AI LA —I roc SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 \ 'EASEMENT'#720302 150'1 WIDEDRAMA •- — F. .!r 421 DITCH BACK Riven OHwM /KC PARCEL NO. 72295:035D in � COY NT NKM I + 111 iPACf 36 RDRON SNCRBMOS /8 W r 'A 14+00 - - Leg Lsz Y i Z w I KC PARCEL NO. 72:-.500340 aw o.N.nRAND NW. m. i ---_J E/L 0 16YE—UPRR N I\ --111\ 1 I! z l--�� ��1 LU W L` , raf9j 1 a_ j s- 1 1/) 8+00 — \�� a \ j I' r 1 1 Cw �. P� j! W - __-- I, 1›,- (\-)1 \ 0' IDlI 1 i.l "�� � i V VOa� 3 T1Ak� Jet 1 Ci F ••ce ��-- �pe`c� �•j s17__ ,,-���10 � - 1 # \� `Avg ` e i 1��= — --1 - --� 1 ui Z / / (:1 (--- )1-- r rm 1 �Ir!'' , ' , 7�`---, _ r -� y` v14 or lE N --C;f• \\ .l L .- 1V". O 0O •/ > KC PARCEL Na 237�(N90D3 ' 1 n• I - AT/--- _ .! \� L. -I j \ I � -1 ae. RR MD Nw. -h' 12 E +T— RRR�'2- 1 1 ii T 1 ', 441, \ • -- 0 KC PARCEL N0. 2323 139003 Of 'Z�,� �CIIY iLMNI= t `— ',b PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 1 1 KC PARCEL N0. 7229500320 ANWJICO KC PAK& NO. 72_=cm330 0.W. RR AND NAV. Co. Ls - UPRR OEM Parametrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IPROJECT NAME 7 Community Development LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A 2 DEMOLITION NOTES: U MAINTAIN EXISTING METAL GATE. OREMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKING. QREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SEALANT. 0 ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. ()INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL OREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 09 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. EXISTING U11UTY STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO V.".l FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO SECTION 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE AND REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 0 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: ()INSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. ()INSTALL HIGH VISIBIUTY FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-10.10-01. ®INSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-30.15-01. /-\ INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FFNCF IN \✓ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. OINSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS LIMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL IS UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. DETAILS. REFER 0. DETAIL H ON SHEET CS1 FOR SCARIFICATION LEGEND: I ! / / / SAWCUT CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE OR HIGH VISIBIUTY SILT FENCE, SEE PLANS. SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION RIP RAP REMOVAL 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I CLEARING, GRADING AND I I DRAWING N0. 9 OF 57 1 16' 1 16' PLOTTED BY: mAlemal GATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 \P50\Prokcte\Olente\1521—KingCo\554-1521-084 L25T\995vcs\CADD\Phase A\Task 2T200C\Dwg\ 3:1, TYP � 6 SEE NOTE 1 \ FOR SECTION A WALL /4 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WRH NATIVE SOILS 2' ST-ILDR 16' 6' 6' PAVED TRAIL PAVED TRAIL 2X MAX PROFILE GRADE �2' SI1LDR RA A- ^2.5. a" 2 A -LINE STA 1+00 TO 10+36 A -LINE STA 11+25 TO 15+38 B-LINE STA 104+60 TO 106+15 B-LINE STA 125+45 TO 126+75 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 3:1, TYP 6 SEE NOTE 2 FOR SECTION A DUSTING GROUND 3:1, TYP SECTION A NOTES: 1. 0.5% FROM A-UNE STA 4+34 LT TO STA 4+82 LT. 2. 2:1 FROM A-UNE STA 11+50 ITT TO STA 13+00 R.T. 3. B-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 104+00 TO SECTION A AT STA 104+60. 4. B-UNE TRANSM NIS FROM SECTION A AT STA 106+15 TO SECTION C AT STA 106+75. 5. 8-LINE TRANSHIONS FROM SECTION C AT STA 124+65 TO SECTION A AT STA 125+45. 6. B-UNE TRANSITIONS FROM SECTION A AT STA 126+75 TO SECTION C STA 127+35. EXISTING GROUND TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE WALL 11 EXISTING GROUND �Rt.SIURED WITH ! NATIVE SOILS TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER TOP OF ROADWAY WALL /5 [COSTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATNE SOILS REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRANK M. MILLER CHECKED O KIVIITA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT2T2CCS-01, JOB No. .. 2' SHLDR 6' PAVED TRAIL 2% MAX 6' PAVED TRAIL PROFILE GRADE 2' SHLDR 5' ^2.5' 4" 2 A-UNE STA 10+36 TO 11+25 A-UNE STA 15+96 TO 16+28 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 8.5' �� 2" MIN.O —i 4 )VARES 4'-6DEPTH /2% VARIES VARIES DUSTING BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB C-LINE STA 201+19 TO 201+26 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 1.5' 8' AEXISTING GROUND EXISTING GROUND C-LINE STA 201+43 TO 203+58 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 6" RED BRICK RUNNING BOND STAMPED CONCRETE. TYP GRADE TO DRAIN 11 a" 11 10' RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND AT MONSTER ROAD TYPICAL SECTION /, NO SCALE — Parametrix EXISTING GROUND WALL 12 EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS 3:1, TYP 2' 6' 6' 2' S 'R PAVED TRAIL PROFILE GRADE PAVED TRAIL S LOR �2.5"O 2 4. B-UNE STA 101+23 TO 104+00" B-UNE STA 106+75 TO 124+85 B-IJNE STA 127+35 TO 143+18 TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND EXISTING BLOCK PEDESTRIAN BARRIER GROUND GRADE TO DRAIN ENGINEERING. PLANNNG. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 13-INCH EXISTING BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB BRIDGE EXPANSION JOINT 4 ej :. a SEE NOTES 3, 4, 5, AND 6 FOR SECTION A SEE DETAILED GRADING AT SHEET C15 WALL #3A AND WALL #3B EXISTING GROUND RESTORED WITH NATIVE SOILS 6" TRAIL SECTION WITH WALL AND FENCE VARIES 1' TYP TO 2'-6" AT WALL APPROACHES r1 TRAIL SECTION WITH FENCE — CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK, VARIES 2"-6". FLUSH WITH ADJOINING DRIVEWAY — 2-INCH DEPTH PARTIAL CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY POINT A 7 A C +26.65 2-INCH PARTIAL DEPTH CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL a SECTION POINT AST ' 01+37.47 PLAN MONSTERS. • ' SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY DETAIL NO SCALE PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A EXISTING GROUND a CEMENT CONC. SIDEWAUC CONSTRUCTION NOTES: HMA CL 3/8" PG 64-22. CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE SELECT BORROW INCL HAUL CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-30.10-03. HMA CL 1/2" PG 64-22. 4" TOPSOIL TYPE A AND SEEDING AND FERTIUZJNG BY HAND. GRAVITY BLOCK WALL. OFFSET AS NOTED IN CROSS-SECTION. SEE ADDYT1ONAL DETAILS ON SHEET WP1. CEMENT CONC TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER PER WSDOT STD PLAN F-10.12-03. 4' HIGH COATED CHAIN IJNK FENCE TYPE 6 WITH TOP RAIL PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB PER WSDOT STD. PLAN F-10.12-03. CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS mlllemal DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:4 PATH: C: \PM%\Temp\ACPublleb 6372\ BEGIN PROJECT BP,STA 1+00 • GREEN RIVER TRAIL 2+00 F F� 0, - • r , 3}00� 1 FORT DENT PARK • \EASEMENT #7203020421 150' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH `� 1 ' A -LINE PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 --T -STA 4+34, 8.0'LT BEGIN-0.5% CUT SLOPE (LEFT SIDE ONLY) STA 1+00 TO ;STA 10+31 t KC PARCEL N0. 2323019001 ----DIY 1UKK11A BL,4CK RIVER I KC PARCEL N0. 7229500350 1 KING COUNTY ilAl`r 3c REniDli Si �AtiDS�/ STA 4+82, 8.O'LT _ E�ND_.. 0.5% CUT SLOPE t_SIDE ONLY) 1 /KC PARCEL N0. 72295003W 11... CRT OF TU(111IA ' IRACT 36 KNION 0IJpa LS W111 1 .-1m W W N 40 35 30 20 15 - 100' VC PVI STA 4+60.00 EL=22.64' K=54.16 0 PVI STA 1+00.00 EL=23.17 I , 1 GRADE a a0, aN:°: . 00FINISHED n25 _ I-0.09%--- . --, GROUND -- o --- --1947.IXIS7WG ..1.— z w Li - In 0 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCH A~ CALF. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE N NAME nc AO AT0T0nn—n1 Ifl of NN 3+00 A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' Parametrix 4+00 ENGINEERING. PLAN . ENVIRONMENTAL YIENCES PROJECT NAME 0 N N O • N 5+pE1 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 O N . - i .--,1+50 Cn^")-TI1Jr-;y T!AV0T--srr0r+ LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. 0 0 0 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-23.60-03. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-03 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 11 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1 AND 3, SHEET D1. 12 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2 AND 3, SHEET D1. 0 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 0 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET D1. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 16 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. 17 INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 18 INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. eINSTALL SOUD WALL PVC CULV. PIPE, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL, TYPE AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS, PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. n INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SEE \J OS AND WP SHEETS FOLi DETAILS. (-2,-,) INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D2. 23 INSTALL SPOT RAIL FENCE PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D4. 24 INSTALL 4"X4"X7' PRESSURE TREATED POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION. SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET D2. aSEE SIGN SCHEDULE ON SHEET C15. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CST FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D3 FOR ROOT PRUNING AND ROOT BARRIER PLACEMENT ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE millemal DATE: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:48 C:\PM%\Temp\ACPublleh_6372\ BLACK RIVER KC PMICF! NO. 7229500360 KING COUNTY 1>4GT 37 RDRON SCRENIDS OHWM ---� V KC PARCEL P. 7229500360 CRYa LIMA TRACT 56 Rf rrai SCREAMS 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 STA KC 149201 ND. 7 TNSF 8 STA 6+6 EGIN -STA 6+64, 9.0 BEGIN ® !%•_ K11L_� 1 KC 7 ND. 23-7-_— _ L 53, 9.0'RT-cI �11 BEGIN OVERHEAD WATERUNE EXISTING OVERPASSES oaa a KC f7Cl KN0. 715CON0 63Y_r/6- z L.,NQ aa�>aa".aSM.Ha• OJ. RaARDa�CAaa0IvpFWz� KC OP.NARCL . EO7 5 hT (. CO. - UPRR LESSEE - UPR -I_ OHWM 9.0'L1 I 00 U CC PLAN St -AI F IN FEET 0 20 40 ELEVATIONS NOT CONFIRMED -STA 8+31, END 15 1 `e :STA 8+3T; 9.G RT END: 15 \J KC PARCEL Na 2323049003 D.N. RR AND NW. CO. LESSEE - UPRR 100 VC PVI STA 6+25.00 EL-19.65' K=92.63 N 0 KC PARCEL Na 7229500320 MWARCO C0 f. STAEND ®8+73TYP,9 0'Rf� ftit20 12 IE=13.5 �zr I , •\ , , 5 -- - 5=LF .91% --' .,-IrL 100 VC In O N IO O O'O N N 5+50 N�NI rn N 6+00 o^� cn — -_--m _._ ---- -- --r Eo 7+00 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED A. KIKIITA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 8L1521084PAT2T2CC-C1 O � .0 m A -LINE PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "=20' VERT: 1 "=5' 6% 06— 8 W 35 PA STA 0+00.00 EL=16.44' 30 K=19.82 EXISTING GROUND FINISHED GRADE ----- ------ � rn n ^In O n -1' - -1^ 25 9+00 o� 2-12" SD 20 15 10 5 . O 10+00 CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES 1-6 APPLY ONLY TO SHEET C5 AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE. O O O BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10, PER WSDOT STD PLAN C-23.60-03. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION TO BRIDGE CONCRETE BARRIER, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-7, DESIGN F. INSTALL BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 31 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN C-20.10-03 AND C-1B. 10 NOT USED 0 INSTALL REMOVABLE BOLLARD PER DETAIL 1 AND 3, SHEET D1. 0 INSTALL FIXED BOLLARD PER DETAIL 2 AND 3, SHEET D1. 13 INSTALL BOLLARD STRIPING PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D1. 14 INSTALL CONCRETE WARNING BAND PER DETAIL 4, SHEET Di. 15 INSTALL FENCED CANOPY PER SHEET D3. 16 INSTALL 48" CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 PER WSDOT STD. PLAN B-10.20-01 WITH ROUND HEAVY-DUTY BEEHIVE GRATE. INSTALL CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM., LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. INSTALL TYPE 1 REST STOP. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET D2. INSTALL SOUD WALL PVC CULV. PIPE, LENGTH AS NOTED ON PLANS. 20 COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE WITH TOP RAIL, TYPE AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS, PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2. 21 INSTALL GRAVITY BLOCK WALL SEE CS AND WP SHEETS FOR DETAILS. 22 INSTALL CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY TYPE C1 PER COR STD. PLAN 104 AND 104.2. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D2. 23 INSTALL SPLIT RAIL FENCE PER DETAIL 5, SHEET D4. 24 INSTALL 4"X4'X7' PRESSURE TREATED POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION. SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET D2. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CS1 FOR TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 1 ON SHEET D3 FOR ROOT PRUNING AND ROOT BARRIER PLACEMENT ALONG THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWING NO. 20 OF 57 A PLOTTED BY: mlllemal SIGN SCHEDULE SIGN NO. PROPOSED LOCATION STA OFF DESCRIPTION MUTCD SIGN SIZE POST SIZE/TYPE REMARKS - SEE NOTE 4 1 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 2 SEE SHEET TS1 CROSSWALK - STOP ON RED R10-23 24"X30" N/A SEE NOTE 1. 3 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 4 SEE SHEET TS1 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL W11-15 30"X30" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 5 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 6 SEE SHEET TS1 TRAIL CROSSING W11-15P 24"X18" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3. 7 SEE SHEET TS1 ARROW W16-7P 24"X12" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3 8 SEE SHEET TS1 ARROW W16-7P 24"X12" N/A SEE NOTES 2 & 3 9 B 142+97 EXISTING TRAIL SIGN N/A N/A N/A PROTECT IN PLACE 10 B 143+15 NO DUMPING N/A N/A 4"X4" / WOOD EXISTING SIGN, NEW POST. 11 B 143+15 NO STOPPING OR STANDING N/A N/A N/A REMOVE AND DISPOSE 12 A 1+30 SPEED LIMIT R2-1 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 13 A 15+20 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 14 A 16+10 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 15 8 142+90 NO MOTOR VEHICLES R5-3 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD 16 B 142+90 SPEED LIMIT R2-1 24"X24" 4"X4" / WOOD NOTES: 1. MOUNT ON MAST ARM, PER CITY OF RENTON STANDARD PLAN G011. 2. MOUNT ON SIGNAL OR LIGHT STANDARD, PER WSDOT STD. PLAN G-30.10-01. 3. FLUORESCENT YELLOW -GREEN BACKGROUND. 4. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE IN THE REMARKS. 5. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR SIGN LOCATIONS. A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN POINT ELEVATION STATION OFFSET NORTHING EASTING 200 29.37 B 102+43 6.0' LT 176555.06 1290767.16 201 29.37 B 102+49 6.4' LT 176542.07 1290767.53 202 29.96 A 17+41 6.0' LT 176527.75 1290770.97 203 29.96 A 17+41 0' 176529.16 1290776.83 204 29.96 A 17+41 6.0' RT 176530.32 1290782.72 205 29.37 A 17+54 6.0' RT 176540.86 1290783.02 206 29.06 A 17+64 6.0' RT 176548.10 1290786.21 207 28.70 B 102+65 6.0' RT 176554.94 1290793.02 208 28.82 B 102+65 0' 176559.88 1290789.61 209 28.94 B 102+65 6.0' LT 176564.87 1290786.28 210 29.21 B 102+54 6.0' LT 176559.27 1290776.72 211 29.15 A 17+64 0.8' LT 176551.85 1290780.50 A REVISIONS DATE 8Y DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCHAT FIJLL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY ALE NAMn E.no AnnTn Tnrr_r. C c A -LINE AND B-LINE INTERSECTION GRADING PLAN DETAIL _ Parametrix % 17+76 NGINFEP . PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES IGN PER PLANS AND SPECS. 4x4 PRESSURE TREATED FIR POST. INSTALL W/ CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED BACKFILL PROVIDE 4" COMMERCIAL CONCRETE CAP WHEN INSTALLED IN ASPHALT SURFACE. 1IIIll�lll,-IHII-IIHII. III,,-1I ASPHALT TRAIL NOTE 1. STAKE SIGN LOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL 2. SEE THIS SHEET FOR SIGN SCHEDULE. POST -MOUNTED SIGNAGE NOTE 1. USE 7' MOUNTING HEIGHT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNS. 2_--- 09) II PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A SIGNAGE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE -1 - -2% 103+0q - - - - - - - .1 Cc n'•mur'ty Development 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION II SIGN SCHEDULE AND DRAWING NO. 33 OF 57 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL C: \PM%\Temp\AcPubllah_6372\ Y NOTES: 1. PADLOCK SHALL BE MASTER KEYED ALIKE TOSM-737 WITH NO. 5LF SHACKLE, OWNER PROVIDED. 2. SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE FOOTING TO DRAIN AWAY FROM POST. 3. HOT DIP GALV. & PRIME PAINT - FINISH COLOR TO BE WHITE MARINE ENAMEL INSTALL 3' DIA. RED REFLECTIVE BUTTONS USING SCREWS AND BOLTS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF BOLARD. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 3/16' X 3- X 1' STEEL SHIMS WELDED TO 5' X 5' TUBE 8 LOCATIONS, TYP 5' x 5' X 1/4' A-96 STEEL SQUARE TUBE 1 1/2' -III-Ill, F 4Ewa iliPaikomm H I I 1�1de,14010, I�!II _ III I1-11I REMOVABLE BOLLARD DETAIL NOT TO SCALE �BROOM BRUSH FlNISH PLAN 3/16- ILtL PLATE CUT TO CONFORM TO TUBE WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH. 4' X 4' X 3/16' (ASTM) A-36 STEEL SQUARE TUBE. INSTALLATION SHALL BE PLUMB PAINT: 1 COAT RUSTOLEUM PRIMER j773 OR EQUAL 2 COATS RUSTOLEUM PERFORMANCE PAINT OR EQUAL WHITE PAINT FULL LENGTH PRIOR TO PLACEMENT (2) 3/B- STEEL PLATE WRH 3/4" RADIUS. WELD TO TUBES. DRILL 5/8' DN HOLES. PLATES TO BE WITHIN 1/8' TO 1/2' OF EACH OTHER WHEN BOU.ARD IS INSTALLED FINISHED GRADE TRAIL., TYP 3/16" STEEL PLATE, 1-1/2" WIDE, WELDED ACROSS END OF TUBE COMMERCIAL CONCRETE N0. 5 GRADE 60 REBAR, 4 PLACES. WELD TO 5'x 5- TUBE (2) 1' DLA DRAIN HOLES RUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE BROOM BRUSH FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO TRAIL TRAFFIC FLUSH WITH HMA TRAIL SURFACING CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE COMPACTED SUBCRADE III -i 11-1 11= CONCRETE WARNING BAND DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 6x6x10 WELDED WIRE MESH n A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED 3. HQNTA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL15210B4PAT2T2DT-1 JOB No. 554-1521-084 TA/2C1 (II 1-- 11 I I 1 I;1 SECTION 4S CHAMFER INSTALL 3' DIA. RED REFLECTIVE BUTTONS USING SCREWS AND BOLTS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF BOLLARD. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 2' CHAMFER 8' X 8- ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED SLOPE CONCRETE N WOOD POST, SET PLUMB FOR DRAINAGE MIN 15 SLOPE FINISHED GRADE /-1/4- MAX — —III---III III=I—III° I °°-1I I f A=I=IIAL 1T TRAIL, TYP 1111 11kASPHALT TRAIL, TYP M II_'—II111 1I11—, ° I o i1III-1IFI CCMONC III AI_ _111-11I-—11I-t-11— IE111— I ' 11 111=11 UNDISTURBED EWE- 1'a—111111 SUB -GRADE_ °_ -g I I I-1 � 1= -III I IM I I-111111—I I I11 -I l l= LI—I i =6-=11 I I=11, ll 1 111 111 j 11>.„I I' FIXED BOLLARD DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 30'-0 `4" WIDE SOLID YELLOW PAINTED LINE 111—III-111, —II1=1III IIALAI 11 E ' =111— CEMENT CONCRETE CLASS 4000 GRAVEL EDGE TRIAL EDGE N FE 9 S FIXED BOLLARD, TIP REMOVABLE CENTER BOLLARD FIXED BOLLARD, TYP TRAIL EDGE GRAVEL EDGE 5 y BOLLARD PLAN LOCATION DETAIL BOLLARD STRIPING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE n n REMOVABLE e BOLLARD 90D/0 REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERINGPLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 37 OF 57 SEGMENT A DETAILS ni PLAN TRAIL ASPHALT EDGE (1) TRASH RECEPTACLE PER SPECIAL PROVISION SECTION 8-30 FINISHED GRADE 'III=1 11=1111 1 6.III TYPE 1 REST STOP DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 111111 II .I 1=I I Fl I El 4-RRo� • STA 1+70, 23.8'LT STA 1+65, 16.0'LT -R=118'_- BENCH PER SPECIAL PROVISION i SECTION 8-30. STAKE LOCATION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS 3' S0. SILLL TUBE PER MFR 4' DEPTH CONCRETE PAD W/ 6x6x10 WWM CENTERED IN SLAB. PITCH 0 2% TO DRAIN. D(PAND DEPTH AT SURFACE PLATE 4' DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACE TOP COURSE CONCRETE FOOTING, (2) PER BENCH COMPACT SUBGRADE, TYP. SEE SPECS. STA 1+20, 10.9'LT STA 1+00 BP, PC N: 176307.33 E: 1290631.52 INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE AFTER REMOVAL OF RIP RAP. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE DURING SHEET PILE WALL INSTALLATION. / r-4x4 PRESSURE I TREATED FIR POST. / )( INSTALL W/ CRUSHED / ROCK COMPACTED /O COMMERCIAL CONCRETE / ) LL CAP WHEN INSTALLED o /i `f IN ASPHALT SURFACE / �� EXISTING GROUND WITH N q VARIOUS SIZED RIP RAP AND VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED X 0 / / Y/ )\ " J I SANDBAGS OR GEOTEXTILE ENCASED QUARRY SPALLS. In 1 3' TYP. FOR SAND BAGS, STAGGER PLACEMENT TO PROVIDE OVERLAP OF JOINTS. FOR GEOTEXTILE, OVERLAP FABRIC 1' MIN. FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STD SPECIFICATION 9-33, TABLE 6. QUARRY SPALLS SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT STD SPECIFICATION 9-13.6. CHECK DAM MUST BE IN PLACE DURING REMOVAL OF RIP RAP AND VEGETATION. �I % U i o k SANDBAG OR QUARRY SPALL CHECK DAM DETAIL 4'-0' FROM EDGE OF TRAIL 2'-0FROM EDGE OF SHOULDER —1 I I I I CI I I I I I- I L ASPHALT TRAIL POST FOR FUTURE PET WASTE STATION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE SEE DETAIL ON - SHEET CS1 STA 2+21 N: 176368.61 --; fl!���e"- E: 1290729.64 DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT' ___ STA 1+31, 11.0'RT DRIVEWAY PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER ONE INCHAT SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME .� _ DRIVEWAY DETAIL DETAIL 40' 30' 20' ECTIO p IT N -. O ± ? O) + co r OI + N N O + <N N 5 PI _J I I ~� U.'M 5 0 I 1— L.J i G.. p W am :_ u_ O n W an F• - En > a 1, 1 J.1 -1.07% -' =t74,z -- -- 1 EXISTING j BACK OF DRIVEWAY WALK FLOW UNE r I O NJ I--N• I.OJ r 00 N ON N]M roM NJ N _ N]I,Oj up 1+00 Ileffirari ENGINEERING. MANNINO . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DRIVEWAY PROFILE HORIZ: 1"=20' VERT: 1"=5' 2+00 40' 30' 20' 2+21 Deve:opmert PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A +' l 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I !1f N-A11 [S II DRAWING Na 38 OF 57 LEGEND: END RAIL 174" SCH 40 — — TOP RAIL 13(I" SCH 40 ® END POST 23fi" SCH 40 1'-0* TYP FENCE CANOPY PLAN NO SCALE OMITS OF FENCE FABRIC 6' HIGH TYPE 1 COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE PER WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 ATTACHED TO SOUTH SIDE OF CANOPY FOR ENTIRE LENGTH OF CANOPY. SEE C—SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL FENCE LENGTH BEYOND CANOPY. GRAVEL TOP RAIL (TYP) 2'-0" GRAVEL END RAIL (TYP) LINE/END POST NO FENCE FABRIC ON NORTH SIDE OR ENDS OF CANOPY CLEARANCE O LINE POST lib' SCH 40 1%" FENCE MESH, BLACK VINYL COATED TO 9 GAUGE F1NSH NOTES: 1. ALL POSTS, RAILS AND FABRIC SHALL BE POWDER —COATED BLACK. 2. SEE WSDOT STD PLAN FS-2 FOR ATTACHMENT OF FENCE FABRIC TO POSTS. 10" MIN SHOULDER PAVED TRAIL CONCRETE POST BASE (END POST ONLY) FENCE CANOPY SECTION NO SCALE REVISIONS DATE Y DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN K. BRAATEN CHECKED,,,Tw ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 8L1521084PAT2T2DT-1 .IDR No. SHOULDER CLEARANCE EXISTING GROUND z ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVNONNENTAL R ENCES \� I PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A Lo 1.17 z 10' MIN 2GRAVEL SHOULDER ADDU1ONAL DEIIMBING AND PRUNING OF TREES AND SHRUBS WILL APPLY TO THIS AREA SEE SECTION 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. PAVED TRAIL SURFACE N EXISTING ,�G `BADE i ��\ ROOT BARRIER DETAIL NO SCALE ROOT BARRIER, ANGLED TO DEFLECT NEW ROOT GROWTH. INSTALL LENGTH OF MATURE _ TREE DIAMETER PLUS 5 FEET. ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE UMRS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ROOT PRUNING ZONE, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS DRAWING NO. 39 OF 57 .f BLOCK WALL UNIT 18"H X 46'W X 41"D (1LXIURED EXTERIOR FACE) EXISTING GROUND TO DAYLIGHT—� - -"'DRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DA- SEE WALL PROFILES FOR EMBEDMENT - 6 IN. 45' BEND F-- SEE SHEET CS1 FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL WAIL OFFSETS COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE OR BLOCK, AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS. UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT SEE DETAIL 2 LIMIT OF STRUCTURE GEOTEXRLE FOR EXCAVATION CLASS A UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE INCL HAUL 4' MIN DRAINAGE INFILL GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIA WRAPPED IN CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXRLE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SLOPE TO DRAIN. J 18" 6" LEVELING PAD (CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE) GRAVITY BLOCK WALL DETAIL /7, 1 "=2, CLEANOUTS SWILL BE LOCATED IN GRAVEL SURFACE AREAS AND BE EQUIPPED WITH A UTILITY BOX AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. FINISHED GRADE Aim NSTRUCTION GEOTEXDLE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE. 6 IN. WYE UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIAM. INSTALL UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUTS AT ENDS OF WALLS, BENDS, AND MAX 100' SPACING. UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT DETAIL 1"=2' 0 REVISIONS DATE By DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN U UII I FR BACKFILL FOR GRAVITY BLOCK WALL PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER 3 PAY LIMIT FO\ 1. EXPANSION JOINT ALONG DRIVEWAY CENTERUNE. 15' MAXIMUM SPACING WHEN DRIVEWAY WIDTHS EXCEED 3D'. 2. PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PATTERNED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE 6" CONCRETE CLASS 4000 AND 4" CRUSHED SURFACE BASE COURSE 6x6x10 WWM SHALL. BE INSTALLED AT 4" DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. BROOMED FINISH. PERPENDICULAR TO TRAIL TRAFFIC. 4" WIDE SMOOTH TROWELED PERIMETER FOR EACH 4'x4' SQUARE PATTERN. IBM MIMI CONTRACTION JOINTS 4' 0.C. ADJUST SPADING EQUALLY AT END IPANELS DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIES SEE C SHEETS PLAN TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSSING (AT GRADE) DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 4? a z EDGE OF PATTERNED CONCRETE OR BACK OF CURB RAMP 1/8" TO 1/4" EDGE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER �. •/ lQ'-o" ,1 PLAN OEXPANSION JOINT @CONTRACTION JOINT ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY 6ffarill LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL ENGINEEawn a.uxnr w,nnannm.rei ccvNncc CCIMIJICNT A FIRST AND LAST POSTS, WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANS M COMMERCLAL CONCRETE 10'-0" TAMPED SOIL AT rPOST BASE, TYP El I -I—i I I -I 4 12"6 MIN Cnmrn ' '-ty De."eI ,;. Tlert PROJECT NAME I I 6" DR SPLIT CEDAR POSTS, TYP, 3"-4" DIA I SPLIT CEDAR RAILS 1.75", TYP f FINISHED /—GRADE MORTISE SECTION A to ELEVATION SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I DRAWING NO. 40 OF 57 WI >1 01 is WICI\ - c•a •N;4= it Wi J 0 2 ao FORT DENT PARK 3 GREEN RIVER .....0.- ;I SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 4\ / GREEN /�A RIVEJZ TRAIL 1 ---- --- ""� `Z R F-- w -F F 4' Kr �?. � r- r=C,• •-:fir ---=-- . �-- --- 1 1 y. offWM PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 Bl4CK RIVER REVISIONS DATE DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE_ IF NOT. SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT01200C-MP FORT DENT PARK 7 / i OHWM -__--- y�Y 1 , � :.--off, ,\ - I - -----1,-.� i �,� 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ENGINEERING. PLANNWG. ENNRONN.ENTAL SCENCES F-1 TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATION FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES DIAMETER' OF TREE REMOVED (`MEASURED AT HEIGHT OF 4S FEET FROM THE GROUND) NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED NUMBER OF Thus TO REPLACE ONSITE 4-6 INCHES (SINGLE TRUNK); 2 INCHES (ANY TRUNK OF A MULTI -TRUNK TREE) 3 1 3 OVER 6-8 INCHES 4 2 8 OVER 8-20 INCHES 6 5 30 OVER 20 INCHES 8 2 16 TOTAL 10 57 V) a D_ m 0 `N - :,\ a —�W 7+D01 T 1 I I --- _ - J-- — - Im PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I 1 f CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 0 0 PLANTING AREA CLEARING AND GRUBBING. STAKE OR FLAG PROPOSED PLANTING AREA UNITS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STARTING CLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA. LEAVE SOIL IN PLACE SEE SPECIFICATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VEGETATION. COMPOST. PLACE 3- LAYER COMPOST OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA. WOOD CHIP MULCH. PLACE 3- LAYER WOOD CHIP MULCH. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MP6 AND FOR PLANTING DETALS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2 LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PLANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTES BY RIPPING OR TIWNC THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24-. 3. PLANTING AREA OMITS AND INTERPIANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FEED AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITFIN CLEARNG AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING AC'TMTY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPIJNE AREA OF EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS. 5. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE. OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, UNITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 7. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND OR WITH HAND-HELD POWER TOOLS. 8. PLANT DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS OR PRUNING SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WILL ENSURE THAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. 10. SELECTED PLANTINGS WILL MEET THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LEGEND: V/ N/ 2 URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER WETLAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERLINE DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE EXISTING TREES S JC N DOSING TREES TO BE REMOVED HABITAT LOG. SEE SHEET MP-6 BRUSHPILE, SEE SHEET MP-6 TILL AREA TO 24" DEPTH PLANTING QUANTITY TAB -THIS SHEET ONLY - SYMBOL, ITEM QUANTITY TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING NATIVE CONIFER TREES - SPACE 15' 0.C. DOUGLAS FIR 10 I\\ WtsIFAN RED CEDAR 14 SITKA SPRUCE 10 NATIVE DECIDUOUS TREES - SPACE 15' O.C. 0 BIG -LEAF MAPLE 14 OREGON ASH 9 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLAN DRAWING NO. 49 OF 57 J 0- a i W�W \ it WI n - — uj Zz j------ = F-1 ----'-"---- o_ 'BLACK RIVER Phi' i -- —LINE 8+00 4. DOUBLE CJL. Ri - dcir kR��ER . dr lii* , • .''' .. & '...4---kf:' '''. i 4„1‘4,401/4‘*+4,4„40.±,fotitt-t#4,41_ a 4.,, co JIB*4H4,4,# 40 .-*# I,1,�1,�44 ►!•-w 4��°�•J -----''-- 7-- ----- ) s' —. \ ------- PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 .>. z \ 3 ♦1♦•♦q 4* o---- I�♦1111♦•:*II•1\ i&♦1t 4?4 —Y--�c \ rr> nn 7.1 **4it/704*/4*4 ar4 • �♦�,1♦♦• /4Pari• 1111 1111N•I.A1 1h.�1 �c�r�' a-a+►� • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ 1 ® ♦ ♦• *1 ♦• • r +fit -,4*,liv... * 1A�4 1♦1♦ 11♦1 11•1 11♦1 1- _ ►�?Ss`d►�.i♦ Iyj=1 A1•1 •♦♦1`'I.+�j►�;A.,,,��,��,�1�►1i �11♦•1;1�♦ •11♦ 1♦♦♦ 1♦♦♦ 1♦♦• 11, r ;T,.�I. — ��I41IIIw®�by11••♦II,�j�i�, ,�y 1464.# 111♦♦4-:*4•1♦1•�1111♦1♦•♦1/1♦1♦111♦1♦1111♦♦114' z !♦j�4`•Y11111• ♦444:01 ��•1♦1�♦i11••11114•.,*1♦♦♦/i1*♦11♦♦11111111♦1110.- -1♦♦•♦III cn - "= * `. *�w1S�4*Ik41 1141,�4r11 *�11•11 ••1♦*14 4� 11 �1♦•, `- ig*♦•♦•s*�l•�1,�••�•1�•1♦♦♦1`1 11 1 I L si It L____:r.FrAzi mra :I 4 aMr to 7- 4::: / - - --_-_7.1-17--' ji'''STF PA- - \----c c ---- 1 - tir X' / • 1_7 ------------------- • -------------------- PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 A REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON ONE INCH AT FULLCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY STATE OF WL CENSED N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A'TN I ENGINEEANJG. PLANNWG . ENIRROR ETITAL SCIENCES I LEGEND: - URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER w w WETLAND BOUNDARY ORDINARY HIGH WATERLINE DESIRABLE VEGETATION EDGE EXISTING TREES XJ S X 7 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED BRAT LOG, SEE SHEET MP-6 BRUSHPILE, SEE SHEET MP-6 BLACK RIVER " R/W TILL AREA TO 24" DEPTH STRAW WATTLE PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A I I CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 01 MIBGATION CLEARING AND GRUBBING. STAKE OR FLAG PROPOSED PLANING AREA UMTIS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO STARTING CLEARING WORK. CLEAR AND GRUB ROOTS AND REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL UNWANTED VEGETATION IN THIS PLANTING AREA LEAVE SOIL IN PLACE SEE SPECIFICATION FOR UST OF UNWANTED VECETATION. 0 COMPOST. PLACE 3' LAYER COMPOST OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA WOOD CHIP MULCH. PLACE 3' LAYER WOOD CFIIP MULCH OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THIS PLANTING AREA. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET MP6 AND FOR PLANTING DETAILS AND REOUREMENTS. 2. LOOSEN ANY SOILS IN PLANTING AREAS COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY RIPPING OR 11WNG THE AREA TO A DEPTH OF 24". 3. PLANTING AREA OMITS AND INTERPLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PUNTING. 4. ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN CLEARING AND GRUBBING AREAS WILL BE FLAGGED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. NOTIFY ENGINEER 5 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING ACTIVITY. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS AND METHODS WHEN WORKING INSIDE THE DRIPUNE AREA OF EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS. 5. ANY CHANGES TO PLANT MATERIAL. SIZE, OR SPACING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST TO DISCUSS OMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, OMITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 7. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND OR WITH NANO -HELD POWER TOOLS. 8. PLANT DEBRIS FROM REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS OR PRUNING SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WILL ENSURE THAT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. 10. SELECTED PLANTINGS WELL MEET THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. PLANTING QUANTITY TAB - THIS SHEET ONLY - SYMBOL' ITEM OVANTRY STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING AREA �i SEE SHEET MAOR � MORE INFORMATION BUFFER VEGETATION BVC1 CONSERVATION PLANTING AREA 21,223 SF TREES - SPACE 12' 0.C. VINE MAPLE 17 BIGLEAF MAPLE -PAPER 9 BIRCH 9 SIIKA SPRUCE 9 DDUGUS FIR 17 PACIFIC WILLOW 26 SFTKA WILLOW 26 WESTERN RED CEDAR 17 SHRUBS - SPACE 4' 0.C. B(AKEO HAZELNUT 60 BLACK HAWTHORN 60 OCEANSPRAY 60 INDIAN PLUM 119 CAUFORNNA WAX MYRTLE 60 NOOTKA ROSE 1/9 THIMBLEBERRY 179 COMMON SNOWBERRY 179 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Gc^ �.ur.ty Uevelcdmert I^ _ ••••,^„ ^, _ _, I I DRAWING NO. 50 OF 57 WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS [ PLANTING HOLE TO BE 2 X DIA OF ROOTBALL PLANT AT SAME LEVEL AS GROWN. TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE LEVEL WITH FINISH GRADE. SHRUB AND SMALL TREE PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE - 17 o o FINISHED GRADE EXISTING SOL I KILL bQI PLANT SHRUBS IN SINGLE SPECIES GROUPS OF 7 TO 12 PLANTS EACH PLANT TREES IN SINGLE SPECES GROUPS OF 1 TO 5 PLANTS EACH. SHRUB O TYPICAL TREE AND SHRUB SPACING DETAIL n NO SCALE - MIN 10' CLEAR EDGE OF PLANTING AREA TREE STAKING 'ARBOR TIE' INC" HEMLOCK/FIR STAKE, 2' DIA. (1 PER TREE) DRIVEN INTO UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL MIN 24' DEPTH FINISHED GRADE T BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS SEE PLANT MATERIAL UST FOR SIZE AND TYPE LEAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO BUDS EXPOSED TAMP SOL AROUND CUTTING AMENDED NATIVE SOIL SEE DETAIL PUNTING HOLE TO BE 2 X DVL OF RODf84L CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOTE: STAKE ALL TREES 3' AND TALLER. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL LS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS n NO SCALE - LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION DETAIL REVISIONS DATE Y DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRAWN J. SWENSON CHECKED n WIWIITA ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME BL1521084PAT01200C—MP JOB No. n NO SCALE - FINISH GRADE NOTE STAKE ALL TREES 1' CALIPER AND GREATER. TREE STAKING ARBOR TIE" HARDWOOD STAKES PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE WOOD CHIP MULCH. KEEP MULCH OFF OF STEMS PLANTING NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE TO DISCUSS UMIS OF WORK AND METHODS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS. OMITS OF WORK AND METHODS ARE APPROVED. 2 MITIGATION PLANTING PLANS REPRESENT A CONCEPTUAL PLANT LAYOUT. FINAL PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO RANTING. 3. USE ONLY HAND TOOLS TO CLEAR AND CULTIVATE SOIL UNDER THE CANOPY (WITHIN AND 5' OUTSIDE THE DRIPUNE) OF COSTING TREES. 4. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR. PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPUED BY COMMERCIAL NURSERIES THAT SPECWJZE IN PIANIS NATIVE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. PLANT SUBSTRUTIONS ME SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 5. MITIGATION PLANTING SHALL TAKE PLACE DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 1ST TO MARCH 1S1). PLANTING MAY BE ALLOWED AT OTHER TIME AFTER REVEW AND WRITTEN APPROVAL BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF ALL DEBRIS AND EXCESS SOIL OCCASIONED BY THIS PROJECT. FINISHED GRADE 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL URUf1ES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BACKFILL WITH WANE SOILS. WATER THOROUGHLY TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS EXISTING SUBCRADE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL DETAIL NO SCALE - SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS 8' x 8' BRUSH PILE DETAIL NO SCALE n 12' TO 18' DIA. LOGS. STAKE LOCATION OF LOG PLACEMENT WHERE INDICATED IN PLANS. ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS BEFORE LOG PLACEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EXISTING GRADE '<NTs• rozs :�u�NOTE: LOGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM TREES FLAGGED BY HABITAT LOG ENGINEER FROM ONSITE DETAIL WITHIN PROJECT CLEARING OMITS. NO SCALE PLANT MATERIAL LIST 8. ALL DIMENSIONS FOR LISTED HEIGHT. LENGTH AND CONTAINER SIZE ARE MNIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 9. EXISTING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTMTIES AND NOT SHOWN TD BE RE -VEGETATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTORED AND SEEDED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLANT ANY NATIVE WOODY VEGETATION DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH SPECIES PROVIDED IN THE PLANT MATERIALS LIST AT 1:1. 10. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH AFFECTED WORK. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING PLANTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION OF PLANTING FOR THE PROJECT. COUNTY WILL MAKE PROVISIONS FOR WATERING AS NEEDED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD AFTER THE FIRST YEAR. QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN SIZE / CONDITION NOTES/ SPACING IBEE5 67 ACER CIRCINATUM • VINE MAPLE 1' CAL / CONT. OR B&B STAKE PROPOSED TREE LOCATIONS IN OPEN INFlLL AREAS WfRiN PLANTING AREAS 106 ACER MACROPIIlLLUM • BIGLEAF MAPLE 1' CAL / CONT. OR B&B 21 BETULA PAYRIFERA • PAPER BIRCH 1' CAL / CONE. OR B&B 9 FRAXINUS LATIFOUA • OREGON ASH 1' CAL / CONT. OR B&B 66 PICEA SRCHENSS • SITKA SPRUCE 3' HT. / CONE. OR B&B 46 POPULUS BALSAMIFERA • ON BLACK COTTONWOOD 1" CAL / CONT. OR B&B 156 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZESII • DOUGLAS FIR 3' HT. / CONT. OR B&B 84 SALIX UJCILIA • PACIFIC WILLOW 1' X 3' LNE STAKE CUTTING 84 SAUX SITCHENSIS • SITKA WILLOW 1' X 3' LIVE STAKE CUTTING 84 THUJA PUCATA • 3' HT. / CONT. OR B&B WESTERN RED CEDAR SHRUBS 248 CORYLUS CORNUTA BEAKED HAZELNUT 1 GAL CONT. STAKE PROPOSED SHRUBS A OPEN INFlLL IN AREAS WITHIN PLANTING AREAS 248 CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII BLACK HAWTHORN 1 GAL CONE. 336 HOLODSCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY 1 GAL CONT. 511 OEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS NDIAN PLUM 1 GAL CONT. 499 MYRICA CJLIFORNICA CAUFORMA WAX MYRTLE 1 GAL CONE. 919 ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 1 GAL. CONT. 608 RUBUS PARVIFLORUS THIMBLEBERRY 1 CAL. CONE 905 SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY 1 GAL CONT. NOTE • REPLACEMENT TREES. DECIDUOUS TREES ME 1" CAUPER AND CONIFEROUS TREES AT 3' HEIGHT ARE COUNTED AS EQUIVALENT FOR 1" OF CALIPER REPLACEMENT FOR TREES REMOVED BY PROJECT. 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS DRAWING NO. 54 OF 57 1 MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE MITIGATION IS TO REPLACE THE HABITATS AND FUNCTIONS LOST AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED MITIGATION WOULD ACCOMPLISH THIS BY ENHANCING 0.49 ACRE OF WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER AND 0.6D ACRE STREAM BUFFER AT LOCATION SITES 1 AND 2. SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FORMULATED TO ACHIEVE THIS RESULT ARE PRESENTED BELOW. MITIGATION GOAL GOAL ENHANCE 0.49 ACRE OF WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF STREAM BUFFER TO NATNE FORESTED UPLAND. ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS GOAL 15 EXPECTED TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC MATTER BY PLANTING TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE ENHANCED BUFFER; INCREASE WILDLIFE HABITAT; AND IMPROVE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BY PLANTING WITH A VARIETY OF NATIVE RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES. MITIGATION OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OBJECTIVE 1: ESTABUSH A MINIMUM OF 0.49 ACRE OF FORESTED WETLAND BUFFER AND 0.60 ACRE OF FORtsILU STREAM BUFFER BY PLANTING NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEAR 1 SURVIVAL OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIES N ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS WILL BE AT LEAST 80 PERCENT. YEAR 3 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES WILL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 35 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS. YEAR 5 NATIVE WOODY SPECIES WILL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER AREAS. OBJECTIVE 2: LIMIT INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES THROUGHOUT THE MITIGATION SITE PLANTING AREAS. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEARS 1-5 HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, CUTLEAF BLACKBERRY (RUBUS LACINIATUS), SCOTCH BROOM (CYTISUS SCOPARIUS), BUTTERFLY BUSH (BUDDLEJA SP.), POISON HEMLOCK (CONIUM MACULATUM), CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE), BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE), AND REED CAMRIGRASS WILL NOT EXCEED 20 PERCENT AREAL COVER IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. OBJECTIVE 3: PROVIDE UPLAND WILDLIFE HABITAT. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: INCREASE IN AREAL COVER OF NATIVE WOODY SPECIES IN THE PLANTED BUFFER. AS MEASURED IN OBJECTIVE 1 TO BE USED AS A SURROGATE TO INDICATE INCREASING HABITAT FUNCTIONS. OBJECTIVE 4: PROTECT THE MITIGATION SITE FROM ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCE. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: YEARS 1-5 CONDUCT YEARLY QUALTATIVE MONITORING TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF THE SITES DURING THE 5-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD FOR HUMAN DISTURBANCE. INCLUDING BUT NOT UNITED TO FLUNG, TRASH. AND VANDALISM. 2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 2.1 MONITORING THE MITIGATION AREAS WOULD BE MONITORED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, MONITORING WOULD ENSURE THAT THE BMPS ARE OBSERVED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS, AND THE ON -SITE CONSTRUCTION WORK (INCLUDING EARTHWORK AND PLANTING) WOULD BE COORDINATED TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED. AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. AN 'AS -BUILT MITIGATION REPORT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA WITHIN 1 MONTH OF LOCATION INSTALLATION. POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OF THE MITIGATION AREAS WOULD BE PERFORMED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD BY QUALIFIED BIOLOGISTS. MONITORING WOULD BE PERFORMED QUARTERLY THE FIRST YEAR AND ANNUALLY FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THE COALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MMGATION ARE BEING MET. A COMBINATION OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MONITORING ACTIVITIES WOULD BE USED TO ASSESS THE MANAGEMENT OBJECTNES AND ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PROPOSAL ACTMTES WOULD INCLUDE CONDUCTING SITE VISITS TO MONITOR UNNATURAL SITE DISTURBANCE. TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT, AND COLLECTING DATA FOR THE QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITIES OF RENTON AND TUKWILA FOLLOWING EACH MONITORING EVENT. APPROPRIATE CONTINGENCY MEASURES WEL BE DEVELOPED, AS NEEDED. BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL TO ENSURE THAT THE SITES DEVELOP HEALTHY VEGETATION THAT MEETS THE OBUGARONS DESCRIBED IN THIS MITIGATION PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED PERMITS REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. SWENSON DRA .I CWENCfIN ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY 2.1.1 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING THE FOLLOWING BULLETED FTEMS DESCRIBE THE METHODS TO BE USED FOR THE QUANTITATIVE MONITORING, MONITORING SCHEDULE, AND REPORT DEADUNES. • THE MMGATION SITES WILL BE ASSESSED BY AN APPROPRIATE QUANTITATIVE VEGETATIVE COVER FIELD ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY. THE UNE INTE 0EF, METHOD WEL BE USED FOR DETERMINING_ PERCENT AREAL COVER FOR WOODY AND INVASIVE SPECIES. • QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENTS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME METHOD IN EACH CONSECUTIVE MONITORING YEAR. • QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENTS WILL BE PERFORMED BETWEEN JUNE 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15 OF EACH MONITORING YEAR. • MONITOR/NG REPORTS WILL BE SENT TO AGENCIES REQUIRING MONITORING REPORTS BY FEBRUARY 15 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. • QUANTITATIVE MONITORING WLL INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION OF THE SITES FROM PERMANENT PHOTOGRAPH STATIONS. 2.1.2 QUANTITATIVE MONITORING QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT WILL BE PERFORMED YEARLY TO VISUALLY ASSESS THE HEALTH OF PLANTS AND IDENTIFY AREAS THAT MAY NEED CONTROL OF NON-NATIVE NVASIVE SPECIES OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTT/RTES. ADDMONALLY, DURING YEARS 1. 2, AND 3 THE SL.'IEENING PLANTINGS (SP-1) WILL ALSO BE QIAUTATIVELY MONITORED TO VISUALLY ASSESS THE HEALTH OF THE PLANTS AND IDENTIFY AREAS THAT MAY NEED CONTROL OF NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES OR OTHER MAINTENANCE ACTMTIES. 2.2 MAINTENANCE THE PROPOSED MITIGATION IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WITH MINIMA_ ONGOING MAINTENANCE PLANTED VEGETATION SPECIES SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO VARYING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE PUGET SOUND LOWLAND; HOWEVER, SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION MIGHT BE NEEDED DURING THE FIRST 11Y0 GROWING SEASONS AFTER INSTALLATION TO ENSURE THE LONG-TERM SURVIVAL OF THE PLANTS. THE NEED FOR IRRIGATION WOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OBSERVED DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. TO ENSURE RAPID ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANT COMMUNITY, TREES AND SHRUBS WOULD BE PLANTED CLOSER TOGETHER THAN WOULD GENERALLY OCCUR IN NATURAL MATURE STANDS. SOME NATURAL MORTALITY IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR DURING THE MONITORING PERIOD. ALL DEAD AND DOWNED WOODY MATERIAL WOULD BE LEFT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE MICROHABTTATS FOR WILDUFE PLANTS WOULD BE REPLACED AS NEEDED TO MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. MAINTENANCE TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES N THE MITIGATION AREAS MAY BE NECESSARY. DURING THE MONITORING PERIOD, IF R BECOMES EVIDENT THAT INVASIVE SPECIES ARE IMPEDING ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIRABLE NATIVE PLANTS, MEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES. A PROGRESSIVELY AGGRESSIVE APPROACH WOULD BE USED TO CONTROL NUISANCE SPECIES. CONTROL MEASURES WOULD FIRST INCLUDE HAND CUTTING AND/OR GRUBBING AND REMOVAL; IF THIS FAILS, AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HERBICIDE (RODEO. OR EQUIVALENT) MAY BE APPUED. 2.3 CONTINGENCY MEASURES IF MONITORING INDICATES THAT THE SITES ARE NOT MEETING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, CONTINGENCY MEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED (TABLE 2-1). SITE CONDITIONS WOULD BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE MOST APPROPRIATE COUNTERMEASURES. INFORMATION FROM THE ANNUAL MONITORING PROGRAM WILL BE USED TO IDENTIFY ANY MAINTENANCE AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. IF PROBLOMS ARE IDENTIFIED IN MONITORING, KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS WILL DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM AND IMPLEMENT PROPER MAINTENANCE OR CORRECTIVE ACTIVITIES. THESE ACTIVITIES WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT. TABLE 2-1. CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR THE MITIGATION SITES PROBLEM CONTINGENCY MEASURE LESS THAN 80% OF PLANTED WOODY SPECIES SURVIVE IN YEAR 1 KING COUNT! BIOLOGISTS (OR OTHER QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST) WOULD ASSESS THE SITE TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDITIONS ARE PREVENTING THE PLANTS FROM THRMNG. APPROPRIATE MEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE LIMITING GROWTH. LOST PLANTS WOULD BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE NATNE SPECIES UNLESS APPROPRIATE NATIVE WOODY SPECIES ARE VOLUNTEERING AT A RATE SUFFICIENT TO REPLACE THEM. ADDITIONAL MEASURES (SUCH AS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PROTECTION) WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF NECESSARY. ADDITIONAL PROTECTION COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF AN HERBIVORE REPELLENT (PLANTSKYDD OR EQUIVALENT). PERCENT COVER FOR WOODY SPECIES NOT MET IN YEAR 3 OR 5 KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS (OR OTHER QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST) WOULD ASSESS THE SITES TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDITIONS ARE PREVENTING THE PLANTS FROM THRIVING. APPROPRIATE MEASURES WOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT ANY CONDTTONS THAT ARE WRING GROWTH. INVASIVE SPECIES EXCEED PERCENT COVER THRESHOLD IMPLEMENT/REVISE INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET AT YEAR 5 CONTINUE THE MONITORING REGIME FOR 1 ADDITIONAL YEAR. THE SITES WOULD CONTINUE TO 8E EVALUATED EVERY YEAR UNTIL THEY MEET THE STATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WFTH MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES. OTHER CONTINGENCY MEASURES MAY BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THIS PERKO. STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Jamage G�rn� .lr ty 90°/D REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROJECT NAME LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A AAITIf' A TI/1I.I kIr r I I DRANNG NO. 55 OF 57 J � GREEN RIVER 1995 FEMA FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY BEGIN PROJECT BP STA 1+00 _ rr ►VER 6 EXISTING GRE—EN CONSERVWCY • • gU EK 200 LINE BUFFER... � . / VARIANCE REQUEST THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) 18.44.100(C)(1), WHICH SPECIFIES A 14-FOOT WIDE TRAIL WITH 2-FOOT SHOULDERS. THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 12-FOOT WIDE TRAIL WITH 2-FOOT WIDE SHOULDERS. EASEMENT #7203020421 150' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH BLACK RIVER • \• _ • FORT DENT PARK PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 CENTERUNE 20' EASEMENT FOR UNDERPASS W-15008 AND 5990555 0 0 t t -�t ____________ • URBAN SUFFER ANCY,.�, • • • - • -- • SOUTH LINE OF DRAINAGE CANAL EASEMENT #8002110444 200' SHORELINE BUFFER IOW ems �Pr .,rn Com-nur'ty Delel pment l 1 I I I (_� 1(I I 1I 11995 FEMA J FLOODPLAIN / BOUNDARY 7t-t.� LL 1 0 :0 ' EASEMENT #9510261362 l 1- / OFFSITE DRAINAGE 1 U U LEGEND: ( DRAINAGE THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA ID NO. — ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) — • — • — URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER — — — 200' SHORELINE BUFFER --- -- 1995 FEMA FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED TRAIL FOOTPRINT TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING LIMITS Para metrix DATE September 28, 2015 FILE SITEPLAN Site Plan Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington STA 1+75 40 40 Z aa TRAIL FOOTPRINT 1>. •c zld rr Z � w z o g TRAIL rL - . RBA CONSERV BUFFE e ix N N 0 VI 30 ________________ __ 20 20 OHWM APPROX. ELEV=15.7 I I - - I 10 10 -160 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 --80 -70 -80 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 SD 60 70 80 90 100 110 STA 2+50 40 40 a_ iTRNL FOOTPRINT Lk� • g %I TRAIL 200 5RQRE JURISDII 30 - 1 30 1 I ---------- 20 20 y OHWM APPROX. i 1 URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER 7 I I TELEv=15.0 1 I 1 - I - I 10 10 -160 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 STA 3+25 40 �1 1 oI 1 TRAIL FOOTPRINT 0 ZO 40 0 TRAIL Q I CJ — 30 30 1 I a -J 1 1 ______________________ I __ _________ _________ 20 20 OHWM APPROX. URBAN CONSERVANCY BUFFER ELEV=15.3 I I I 1 1 L 10 10 -180 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 Parametrlx DATE September23, 2015 FILE SECTIONS 0 10 Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington SCALE IN FEET 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 STA 4+00 z s of o pt � TRAIL FOOTPRINT t Oix 0N `'l z Z0 a 8 O - TRAIL Q I t I EXISTING Jr GROUND i I i I it CO APPROX. t t I --�OHWM ElEV= 3.4� -110 —100 —90 —80 —70 —60 —40 —30 —20 -10 0 10 20 STA 4+75 30 40 so so 70 so so 100 110 120 4o 30 20 10 z s o or of O I t TRAIL FOOTPRINT TRAIL 0. — ' —dor - - DOMING GROUND I i �, OHWM APPROX. r I 1 , ELEV=13.0 —90 -so 40 20 10 —70 —60 —50 —40 —30 —20 —10 0 10 20 a0 40 STA 5+50 so 60 70 8o 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 TRAIL FOOTPRINT z) 4. UBBAN- JSERVANCY BUFFER N� z i o TRAIL I 1---------[D0SflNCGR0UND Y OHWM APPROX. t t t I I ELEV=12.8 —60 -50 —40 —30 —20 —10 0 10 20 30 40 50 so 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 40 30 20 10 160 40 30 20 10 Parametrix DATE September 23, 2015 FILE SECTIONS 0 N 10 17. 17. r nmm! Irn[fi. Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington 40 30 20 10 0 STA 6+25 TRAIL FOOTPRINT 3- a TRAIL - cor EXISTING GROUND OHWM APPROX. I I ELEV=12.S -60 40 30 20 10 D -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 so so STA 7+00 70 so so 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 TRAIL FOOTPRINT zl al of gl W Zo t oceo wmw z U cor TRAIL 1 1__/IG __OHWM APPROX ELEV=13.4 i 1 � -50 -30 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so so 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 30 20 10 0 40 30 20 10 0 Parametrix DATE September 23, 2015 FILE: SECTIONS 0 10 Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington SCALE IN FEET 40 30 20 10 0 — 60 40 30 20 STA 7+75 TRAIL OOTPRINT TRAIL Q EXISTIN G GROUND OHWM APPROX. ELEV=13.3 10 0 —50 —40 —30 NOTE: FLOODPWN IS NOT WITHIN SECTION RANGE. - 20 - 10 0 TRAIL FOOTPRINT 10 20 30 40 50 60 STA 8+50 TRAIL CL EXISTING GROUND 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 ,g_OHWM APPROX. ELEV= 27 1 —50 —40 —30 NOTE: FLOODPLAIN IS NOT WITHIN SECTION RANGE. - 20 - 10 a 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 40 30 20 10 0 40 30 20 10 0 Pari metrix DATE September 23, 2015 FILE SECTIONS 10 --+•!-• ,..,w-r.w.Th Cross Sections Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Iftenntiett.7 ueo - Moira Bradshaw From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:39 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, PL16-0014, L16-0016, L16-0017, Notice of Application for SSDP and SSDV Moira, Thank you for providing us with access to the requested information for the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, project referenced above. We have reviewed this information and offer the following initial comments and questions. 1. From the drawings providing, it appears that 15 trees that are 4 inches in diameter and greater and within 200 feet of either the Green River or Black River will be removed as part of the trail project within Tukwila. These trees should be placed within the Ordinary High Water Mark of the respective river as partial mitigation for the temporal loss of future wood recruitment function. Planting smaller sized trees, even at higher ratios (i.e. >1:1) does not mitigate for the this temporal impact. Both rivers are lacking wood and tree removal will further this impact unless mitigated as we propose. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. 2. We are concerned that this trail will preclude or limit proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG- 18 identified in the Chinook Recovery Plan for WRIA 9. The applicant needs to provide details as to how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench."(LG-17) The existing Green River Trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 3. The project also needs to ensure that tribal members have full safe access to their fishing sites on the Green River that are adjacent to or near the site during project construction. The permits should require that access be provided and the applicant to coordinate with us to ensure that there are no conflicts. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City/applicant's responses. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Ntthut0A44, Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:Moira.Bradshaw@TukwilaWA.gov] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:44 AM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, PL16-0014, L16-0016, L16-0017, Notice of Application for SSDP and SSDV Hi Karen - Thanks for takPng an interest in the above project. Below is a link (hopefully) to our FTP site. The six files related to this project are in the Lake to Sound Trail —Tukwila segment folder. httos://cloud.tukwilawa.gov/data/public/SHARE.php?hash=17d517 Please let me know if this isn't working and I will trouble shoot. Kind regards, Moira Carr Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 The City of opportunity, the community of choice www.tukwilawa.gov (206) 431— 3651 I Monday 1:00 -5:00; Tuesday and Wednesday 8:30 — 5:00 From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:45 PM To: Moira Bradshaw Subject: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, PL16-0014, L16-0016, L16-0017, Notice of Application for SSDP and SSDV Importance: High Moira, We received the Notice of Application postcard for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above. We need more information and would appreciate a copy of the complete application packet sent to Tukwila by the applicant. As this is likely a large document, it might be easiest to put the materials on the City's FTP site and let us know how to access it. We appreciate your assistance with this request. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Denis Law Mayor May 10, 2016 Moira Bradshaw, Project Planner DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 dokehrwitt3 L!(a-oo/4- Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator VIA Email: moira.bradshaw@tukwila.gov SUBJECT: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, Project #PL16-0014, File L16-0016 &L16-0017 Dear Ms. Bradshaw, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment regarding the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L16-0016) and Shoreline Variance (L16-0017) for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. The proposal is to construct a 12-foot wide trail instead of the City of Tukwila standard 14-foot wide trail. The City of Renton requests that the following conditions (indicated as mitigation in the DNS-M) be required for the project: • AU construction activity shall stop iif cultural resource artifacts are discovered during construction. Notification of concerned Tribes, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the City of Renton Planning Division. • Contractors working in Tukwila and hauling within Renton shall comply with City of Renton haul route hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. Please contact me if you have any question regarding this letter. I can be reached by telephone at: 425-430-7286 or via email: jhenning@rentonwa.Rov Sincerely, jv" Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Director cc: C. E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Jim Seitz, Transportation Division Bob Mahn, Transportation Division Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Todd Black. Parks Division Denis Law Mayor March 4, 2016 RECE VED ;4; 0 7 201g Community Development Jason Rich King County Parks 201 S. Jackson St, Room 700 Seattle, WA 98104 City of City Clerk - Jason A. Seth, CMC 40-rO17- SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision for the Lake to Sound Regional Trail File No. LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Mr. Rich: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated March 2, 2016. Vanessa Dolbee, Renton's Current Planning Manager, has issued a letter to the State Department of Ecology dated March 4, 2016. Both of these documents are immediately available: • Electronically online at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov); • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner's Decision is $4.65, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filled within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. • RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Jason A. eth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (4) Denis Law Mayor March 4, 2016 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance for Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segment A File No. LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and a Shoreline Variance for the above referenced project. The permit was approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on March 2, 2016. A Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated was issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on January 15, 2016. The appeal period ended on January 29, 2016, and no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 14Ij -DdheiL Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosures: 1. Hearing Examiner Decision 2. Legal Descriptions 3. Copy of Master Applications 4. Project Narrative 5. Hearing Examiner Report and Exhibits 6. Neighborhood Detail Map 7. Notice of Application Washington State Department of Ecology Page 2 of 2 March 4, 2016 8. SEPA Checklist 9. SEPA Determination, Mitigation Measures, and Advisory Notes cc: Office of Attorney General Jason Rich/Applicant Jenny Bailey, Parametrix/Contractor Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg, Jack Pace/City of Tukwila, Carol Lumb/City of Tukwila Senior Planner, Party(ies) of Record SM cover letter LUA15-000257.2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY t.'"`1 -�, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT G;mmun:ty A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Development HEARING DATE: February 16, 2016 Project Name: Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A Owner: City of Renton; City of Tukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific Applicant/Contact: King County DNRP/Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7th Floor; 201 S. Jackson St; Seattle WA 98104 File Number: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Project Manager: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a 16-mile regional trail that links Lake Washington and Puget Sound. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width, is paved, and located in the inner 50% of the buffer area. The trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). The trail is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' Shoreline Overlay and associated wetland buffers. 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Portions of the trail corridor are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area with a net result of 135.5 cubic yards of soil removal within the flood area. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 2.26 acres of mitigation planting areas are proposed. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption by Washington State Department of Transportation. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. Project Location: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton to Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila Site Area: 3.94 acres paved (and 5.26 acres with shoulder) for 1.2 mile length City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 2 of 40 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibits 1-36: Exhibit 37: Exhibit 38: Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: Exhibit 41: Exhibit 42: As shown in the SEPA Environmental Review Report, dated January 11, 2016 Hearing Examiner Report City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, adopted May 11, 2009 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element and Appendix B Public Access Objectives by Reach Critical Areas Figure 3-1, prepared by Parametrix Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated Tree Retention Worksheet C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Critical Areas: 6. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: b. East: c. South: d. West: 6. Project Data: 7. Site Area: City of Renton; City of Tukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC) Employment Area (EA) Trail and recreation, gravel maintenance road, street right-of-way, and railroad right-of-way and river crossings. Shoreline Natural Overlay designation, Wetlands, Flood hazard, Steep Slopes Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way (Resource Conservation RC zone) and Concrete Recycling Use (Industrial Light IL zone) Office Park (Commercial Office CO zone) Industrial and manufacturing uses (Industrial Medium IM and Industrial Heavy IH zones) Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Industrial Medium IM zone) and City of Tukwila Fort Dent Park / Starfire Sports Complex Trail length: 1.2 miles between Tukwila and Renton Shoreline Enhancements: 98,297 square feet of restoration and planting areas 3.94 acres paved (and 5.26 acres with shoulder) for 1.2 mile length D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation — S 180th Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5758 5758 1745 Date 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 04/19/1959 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 40 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a. Water: Water is not a requirement of this project. b. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. c. Surface/Storm Water: The existing drainage systems consist of the cross culverts along the trail/gravel road within the Black River Riparian Forest and Monster Rd SW conveyance systems. 2. Streets: The trail project corridor crosses Monster Rd SW currently on the Monster Road Bridge. The trail corridor eastern terminus is Naches Ave SW. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards d. Section 4-2-130: Industrial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations b. Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 9 Permits - Specific a. Section 4-9-190: Shoreline Permits 4. Chapter 10 Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots a. Section 4-10-095: Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites 5. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Shoreline Management Element H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop an approximate 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. There is an existing trail where the subject improvements but it is not fully improved to accessibility standards or with a paved surface. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park to Naches Avenue SW. Most of the trail is within the City of Renton, with the municipal limit roughly between the two sets of railroad tracks west of Monster Road. The proposed trail is typically 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The trail section is 14,317 feet long and 12 feet wide for a total paved footprint area of 3.94 acres. With the City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 4 of 40 alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. It follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The 150 feet west of Monster Road is on existing paved surfaces. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new pedestrian bridge. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east -west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, and within wetland buffer areas. The east trail terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The project is estimated at about $3,000,000 and would take approximately 12 months to complete. The project is subject to federal funding through Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration and therefore requires federal regulatory review in addition to local jurisdictional review by the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. The applicant's submittal is based on the full 1.2-mile segment located in both Renton and Tukwila. The applicant is requesting land use approvals from City of Renton and City of Tukwila for development within the shoreline. This Hearing Examiner Report is only for the City of Renton project area, for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and a Shoreline Variance. SEPA was conducted by City of Renton for both jurisdictions. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any development within the regulated Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction per RMC 4-9-190B.3. A Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit is required per RMC 4-9-190B.4 for the proposed Overland Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails Use and Expansion of Existing Over -Water Trails Use located within the Shoreline Natural Overlay designation per the Shoreline Use Table of RMC 4-3-090E.1. A Shoreline Variance is required per RMC 4-9-190 for an activity or development that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the program. There is an existing 10 to 12-foot wide trail/gravel road that is the same alignment that will be used for the proposed trail improvement. The applicant requests a Variance from the development standards for trails within wetlands and wetland buffers. Specifically, the request is to allow a greater width for a trail, an impervious asphalt surface, and for the trail to be allowed within the inner 50 percent of a wetland buffer. Per RMC 4-3-050D.2.d.ix.f, Recreational Activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer 50 percent of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section. The applicant is requesting a Variance from criteria numbers 1 and 2 of RMC 4-3-050D.2.d.ix.f so that the proposed trail improvement can be greater than 4 feet in width, surfaced with asphalt, and within the inner 50 percent of wetland buffers within the Category II, III, and IV wetlands associated with the project. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non - motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A would provide a much -needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In -..J .J :+:.... +.. +1... /^_.- D:...... T.-..:I f'.............+ A .......1.J + +.. +1... 1..+..... City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 5 of 40 I. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): 1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on April 17, 2015 and determined the application complete on May 7, 2015. The project review was put on hold June 18, 2015 and taken off hold and in review on December 21, 2015. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 2. The project site is a 1.2 mile trail corridor and located in both cities of Tukwila and Renton. The corridor is located between Fort Dent and the Starfire Sports Complex in Tukwila at the west and Naches Ave SW in Renton at the east with the majority of the corridor parallel an east -west railroad right-of-way in the northern portion of the City of Renton Black River Riparian Forest area (Exhibit 13). 3. The project site is currently developed with an informal trail, with the majority of the trail corridor an existing 10 to 12-foot wide gravel maintenance road east of Monster Road used as a trail in the Black River Riparian Forest area, a crossing of the Black River via the Monster Road Bridge, through north - south railroad right-of-ways, and connection to the Green River Trail at the developed Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. 4. Access to the trail corridor would be provided via Fort Dent and the Starfire Sports Complex in Tukwila at the west terminus, Naches Ave SW in Renton at the east terminus, and from Monster Rd SW. 5. The property is located within the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. 6. The site is located within the Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC) zoning classifications. 7. The proposed trail improvement, width, impervious surface, and location were adopted in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan adopted in 2009 (Exhibit 38). 8. There are approximately 16,000 significant trees across the approximate 80 acre area of which the applicant is proposing to remove 151 and retain a total of 7,849 trees which equates to 98 percent tree retention rate(Exhibit 42). 9. The site is mapped with Shoreline Master Program `Natural' Overlay for the Black River/Springbrook shoreline, seven associated wetlands, and within the 100-year floodplain. 10. Within Renton's mapped floodplain, approximately 100.89 cubic yards of fill and 236.39 cubic yards of excavation are proposed and the full length of the project has a net result of 135.5 cubic yards of soil removal (Exhibit 5, page 6-1 and Appendix F, and Exhibit 32). 11. The applicant is proposing to begin construction in Spring 2016 and end 12 months following the start. 12. Staff received one agency comment letter, from the Muckleshoot Tribes Watersheds and Land Use Team (Exhibits 11 and 29). The Environmental Review Committee SEPA report provided explanation of the concerns provided by the Muckleshoot Tribes and responses. The Muckleshoot concerns regarded two restoration plans along the Black River and Green River areas and what the proposal's impacts would be to those restoration sites. The Muckleshoot also requested additional background regarding the no net loss analysis. 13. No other public or agency comments were received. 14. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 11, 2016 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segment A (Exhibit 41). The DNS-M included five mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on January 15, 2016 and ended on January 29, 2016. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 6 of 40 15. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. 16. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development (Exhibits 16 and 36). These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 17. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Shoreline Natural Overlay area on the City's Shoreline Environment Overlay Map. The objective in designating a natural environment is to protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that are ecologically intact as close to their natural state as possible. The Natural Overlay area allows a variety of resource, recreation, and enhancement development types. The proposal is compliant with the following shoreline policies if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance Renton Comprehensive Plan Analysis V Objective SH-F. Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the natural amenities. ,i Policy SH-20. Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions, as provided in Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction with the following policies. ,i Policy SH-21. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's edge may be restricted to protect shoreline ecological values. Public access shall be provided over all public aquatic lands leased for private activity, consistent with compatibility with water -dependent uses. '/ Policy SH-22. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property and may be acquired by easement or other means over intervening private property. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUAIS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 7 of 40 ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water -dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including trail systems. V Policy SH-28. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. V Objective SH-H: Minimize the impacts of motor vehicle traffic and encourage non- motorized traffic within the shorelines as part of achieving no net loss. V Policy SH-41: Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. ✓ Policy SH-43: Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the shoreline: 1) Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of non -motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline. 2) Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links together shoreline public access into an interconnected network. 3) Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community facilities and the comprehensive traits system that provides non - motorized access throughout the City. 4) A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River, the Black River/Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. 18. Shoreline Master Program General Development Standards Compliance: The site where the trail corridor would be located is classified as Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay District on the City of Renton Shoreline Overlay Map. Per RMC 4-3-090D, General Development Standards, the following standards are applicable to all use and development activities within the shoreline and shall be used in the evaluation of shoreline permits including Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. Renton Municipal Code provisions in RMC 4-4 "City-wide Property Development Standards" contain regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others and such City-wide provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance Development Standards and Analysis 2. Environmental Effects a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in ,., ,.,. +l,n+ .,r.,,..,.,+.- "....,i+i.,-,+,,v i.t...- +.- +., .,..., I.., .....,.,+ I.,« ,,f City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation , LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 8 of 40 conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project -specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on- or off -site. iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Staff Comment: The ecological functions and natural character of the shoreline and associated wetland has been evaluated in the Environmental Review Committee Report, dated January 11, 2016 (Exhibit 1). The Environmental Review Committee Report and applicant's submitted biological studies find that there would be no net loss of ecological function and values of the Black River/Springbrook shoreline and associated wetlands through development of the trail corridor as proposed and that any ecological impacts would be mitigated for through mitigation measures such as the proposed restoration planting areas and construction best practices for the construction of the Black River bridge crossing. Potential ecological impacts of the proposal are analyzed in reports submitted with the application. These reports include the Critical Areas Study (Exhibit 6), Stream Report (Exhibit 7), Vegetation and Wildlife Report (Exhibit 8), Bridge Biological Assessment (Exhibit 14), and Floodplain Studies (Exhibits 6 and 5). The reports' analyses document that: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 9 of 40 follows an existing gravel roadway east of Monster Road and an existing informal pedestrian path and roadway west of Monster Road. The impacts on vegetation and related elements of the natural environment are limited because the existing trail corridor has previously disturbed natural vegetation communities within the area affected by elements of the proposed trail. • Additional impervious surface will not have an adverse impact on receiving waters or nearby wetlands due to stormwater management. The trail is a non - pollutant -generating surface. • The trail has been located and designed to minimize impacts of additional human use of the trail corridor on affect wildlife in the vicinity. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting herons will not be allowed near the Black River heron colony during sensitive periods. Areas between the nesting colony and the trail will be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide additional visual screening for herons. • Mitigation measures including wetland buffer restoration, plantings to further screen the heron colony, and fencing and a variety of construction mitigation in each report and summarized below will mitigate impacts to result in no -net loss of ecological functions. An evaluation of mitigation sequencing has been provided to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions (Exhibit 4, pages 2-12 to 2-13). The following is the mitigation sequence analysis in order of "a" through "e." a. Alternative trail corridors were evaluated in the development of the subject proposal and are depicted in Exhibit 4, Figure 2-4. Four alternative trail alignments were considered with the proposed trail corridor alignment. Alternatives 1 and 2 are not feasible and prudent due to cost and safety considerations. Alternative 3 would not provide the same benefits or safety of the preferred two-way multi -use trail on a separate right-of-way. Alternative 4 would require the removal of numerous trees in close proximity to an existing Heron colony and more extensive grading. b. and c. The proposal would limit the degree and/or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, and by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts by: • Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area. • Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads and disturbed areas (see Section 1.3, Project Area and Setting) and uses an existing bridge crossing of the Black River to minimize disturbance of adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species that use these areas. • Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening would occur toward the perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 10 of 40 variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. • Planting of trees. Where the trail runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, native trees and shrubs will be planted along the south side of the trail to provide additional visual screening of the trail from the central portion of the natural area to the south. As these plants grow taller and more dense, they will reduce the potential for trail use to disturb nesting herons. Plantings will be monitored to ensure establishment and long-term success. • Fencing. Fencing will be placed on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in areas that appear inviting, to discourage people from accessing the central portion of the natural area. Vegetation planted for visual screening will further discourage intrusions. Other wildlife viewing trails are provided on the south side of the forest. Wayfinding signage at Naches Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW, and Monster Road will describe the options. • The following measures would be implemented before and during trail construction to avoid or minimize effects on vegetation and wildlife resources. These strategies would be implemented along with others designed to avoid or minimize effects on other resources, such as streams, wetlands, and soils. Those strategies would be expected to provide additional protection to vegetation and wildlife resources within and adjacent to streams and wetlands. • Limiting construction activity to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. • Preparing and implementing a revegetation plan that emphasizes the use of native species. • Where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, replacing all cleared trees over six inches diameter with new seedlings in accordance with the City of Renton's regulatory requirements. • To minimize harm to migratory birds, conducting vegetation clearing and construction activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through August 31. • Preventing disturbance of nesting great blue herons and their young due to trail construction and other noise -generating activities by implementing the following measure: • Within 1,312 feet of the Black River heron nesting colony, conducting activities that are likely to disturb nesting herons outside of sensitive periods (i.e., restrictions would apply between January 15 and August 31). • Restricting activities would include major earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand tools would not be restricted. • If bald eagles construct a new nest within 660 feet of the trail City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 1 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 11 of 40 disturb nesting eagles, will be implemented. • All areas temporarily affected by construction would be restored to pre -construction conditions and re -planted or seeded with native species. d. The mitigation measures would be monitored, particularly the survival of plants installed, and the effectiveness of wetland buffer mitigation and corrective action implemented to assure that the specifications of the mitigation plan are met. e. To compensate for ecological function adverse impacts, the following are measures the applicant proposes: • Habitat improvement and restoration would be implemented to mitigate project -related effects on wetland buffers and stream buffers. The mitigation plan focuses on providing compensatory mitigation measures for riparian buffers and wetland buffers at equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. Impacts to wetland buffers and stream buffers are generally replaced at a ratio of 1:1. The Black River Riparian Forest falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program, which specifies a replacement ratio of 1:1 for impacts to wetland buffers. The mitigation site would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. The proposed mitigation site is located near the proposed trail alignment but outside of the trail right-of-way, on land owned by the City of Renton in the Black River Riparian Forest natural area. Mitigation would consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on buffer resources by maintaining or enhancing those functions that support water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Proposed enhancements would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of organic soil amendments (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. • Native trees and shrubs would be planted along approximately 250 feet of the trail to provide additional visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony. These additional plantings would be located west of the nesting colony, where views toward the colony are not already obscured by existing vegetation. The plantings would consist of both evergreen and deciduous trees to block views, as well as densely growing shrubs to discourage pedestrians from venturing off the trail. Such plantings, combined with fence installation along the southern edge of the alignment of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, are expected to reduce the potential for disturbance. The above staff comments provide the required analysis and review of the applicant's submitted documents and identify that there is No Net Loss to the functions. Additionally, the applicant has provided an impact evaluation for the proposal and an evaluation of mitigation sequencing as required. b. Burden on Aoolicant: Applicants for Permits have the burden of nrovine that the City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 12 of 40 Program and the Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net Toss of ecological functions. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted Permit Narrative and Justification as a summary to all the required standards of the City of Renton and Washington State Shoreline Master Programs. Additionally, the applicant submitted the required studies that identify anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation measures to mitigate for any potential impacts to the environment, shoreline areas, and regulated wildlife and habitat. For staff's evaluation of net loss of ecological function, see subsection "2a. Environmental Effects — No Net Loss of Ecological Function" in FOF 18 above. c. Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction: Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail. Staff Comment: The site is located within the Shoreline Natural Overlay, the 100-year flood hazard area, and the pedestrian bridge would be located near sensitive and steep slopes along the banks of the Black River. The site is located primarily within the regulated Shoreline Master Program 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction of the Black River and within wetlands that are associated with the shoreline area. Of the seven wetlands that are along the proposal trail corridor, some of the wetland may be outside of the shoreline regulated area, although this is not known unless further biological assessment were conducted to determine if hydrology between all identified wetlands and the shoreline area were determined to be separate. Therefore, based on the Shoreline Master Program being the most restrictive provision, and based on the fact that no analysis has been conducted to determine if some of the identified wetlands are not associated with the Black River shoreline area, this report uses the Shoreline Master Program regulations of RMC 4-3-090 for the project evaluation rather than the Critical Areas Regulations of RMC 4-3-050. Portions of the 1.2-mile trail corridor are located in the 100-year flood hazard area (Exhibit 25). The proposal would not create a need for compensatory storage. The proposed bridge and abutments are designed to be above the 100-year floodplain elevation with the bottom of the bridge approximate 6 feet above the floodplain base flood elevation. In the areas where the trail is below floodplain elevation, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill will be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation is proposed across the full 1.2-mile trail length (Exhibit 5, page 6-1 and Appendix F, and Exhibit 32). Within Renton, approximately 100.89 cubic yards of fill and 236.39 cubic yards of excavation are proposed within the floodplain. , City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 13 of 40 Report provides a review of the bridge span, the supporting foundations and construction methods. d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction: i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. Unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication No. 96-94), regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised August 2004. iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study shall be required. iv. Wetland Buffers: (a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions. (b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this Chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (c) Minimum Buffer Width: Required buffers for the identified Category II, III, and IV wetlands are 50, 75, and 100-foot distances. v. to viii. Not Applicable ix. Allowed Activities in Wetlands and Buffers: The following uses and City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 14 of 40 buffer areas by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee subject to the priorities, protection, and mitigation requirements of this Section: (b) Roadways, Railways, and Bridges: Public and private roadways and railroad facilities, including bridge construction and culvert installation, if the following criteria are met: (1) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland buffer based on analysis of system needs, available technology and alternative routes. Location within a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a location within a wetland; (2) Facilities parallel to the wetland edge are located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation; (3) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum necessary, which may include placement on elevated structures as an alternative to fill, where feasible; (4) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section. (d) Existing Facilities: Maintenance, repair, or operation of existing structures, facilities, or improved areas, including minor modification of existing serviceable structures within a buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact wetland functions, and subject to the provisions for nonconforming use and facilities in chapter 4-10 RMC. (f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer (including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill;. /A11A/,.+I., ...J ....:a:....+:,...:..-..........J ........ ...:+L. ..L..-..n+i.... Il7.dv ..F +l.ir City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 15 of 40 x. Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net Toss of wetland function and values in accordance with subsection D7 of this Section and this subsection. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values. (a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the prioritized order provided for in subsection D2aiii of this Section. (b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation requirements shall be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1); and Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this Code provides differing standards. (c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the following order of preference: (1) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. (2) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural and/or historic functions. (3) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting primarily of nonnative, invasive plant species. (4) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands. (5) Preserving Category I or II wetlands that are under imminent threat; provided, that preservation shall only be allowed in combination with other forms of mitigation and when the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee determines that the overall mitigation package fully replaces the functions and values lost due to development. (d) Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Impacts: Compensatory mitigation for wetland alterations shall be based on the wetland category and the type of mitigation activity proposed. The replacement ratio shall be determined according to the ratios provided in the table below. The created, re-established, rehabilitated, or enhanced wetland area shall at City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 16 of 40 altered and shall be located in an appropriate landscape setting. (e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures. (f) Special Requirements for Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks shall not be subject to the replacement ratios outlined in the replacement ratio table above, but shall be determined as part of the mitigation banking agreement and certification process. (g) Buffer Requirements for Replacement Wetlands: Replacement wetlands established pursuant to these mitigation provisions shall have adequate buffers to ensure their protection and sustainability. The buffer shall be based on the category in subsection D2dii of this Section; provided, that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to approve a smaller buffer when existing site constraints (such as a road) prohibit attainment of the standard buffer. (h) Adjustment of Ratios: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to adjust these ratios when a combination of mitigation approaches is proposed. In such cases, the area of altered wetland shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio through re-establishment or creation, and the remainder of the area needed to meet the ratio can be replaced by enhancement at a 2:1 ratio. For example, impacts to one acre of a Category II wetland requiring a 3:1 ratio for creation can be compensated by creating one acre and enhancing four (4) acres (instead of the additional two (2) acres of creation that would otherwise be required). (i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on -site or off - site in the location that will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of success; provided, that mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the same watershed sub -basin as the permitted alteration. (j) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on- or off -site shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4. (k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season based on weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 17 of 40 (I) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared in accordance with RMC 4-3-050M16. All compensatory mitigation projects shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but generally not for a period less than five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually for the next five (5) years following construction and subsequent reporting shall be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: (1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards for adjacent development shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland, and shall include: (a) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient building area outside wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented whenever feasible to provide a rear yard of at least twenty feet (20') between the buffer area and buildings; (b) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential development to limit domestic animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas; (c) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far from the wetland and buffer as feasible. Roads, driveways, parking Tots and loading areas, mechanical or ventilating equipment shall be located on sides of buildings away from the wetland, or separated by noise attenuating walls; (d) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetlands shall be limited by locating areas requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland boundary, or limiting light mounting heights to a maximum of four feet (4'). Windows that will be lit at night should be minimized on the side of buildings facing wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below; loi Di innff ehrsi llrl ho rni ,tort to infil+rn+inn evetnme tr• +kn mwim, Im City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 18 of 40 and/or water bodies and to limit overland flow and erosion; (f) Surface or piped stormwater should be routed to existing conveyances or to other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where stormwater is routed to wetlands, system design shall assure that erosion and sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible; (g) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other landscaped areas from entering the buffer, and to prevent washing of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the buffer, if slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed fifteen percent (15%), a ten feet (10') wide swale to intercept runoff or other effective interception facility approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall be provided at the edge of the buffer; (h) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management system including limiting use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within twenty five feet (25') of the buffer. xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain effective buffer conditions and functions, a vegetation management plan shall be required for all buffer areas, to include: (a) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including trees and understory; if existing tree cover is Tess than a density of twenty (20) trees per acre, planting shall be required consisting of seedlings at a density of three hundred (300) stems per acre or the equivalent; (b) Providing a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the buffer if existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing adjacent development from within the buffer. Planting shall be required equivalent to two (2) rows of three feet (3') high stock of native evergreens at a triangular spacing of fifteen feet (15'), or three (3) rows of gallon containers at a triangular spacing of eight feet (8'). Fencing may be required if needed to block headlights or other sources of light or to provide an immediate effective visual screen; (c) Providing a plan for control of invasive weeds, and removal of existing invasive species; (d) Providing for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least five (5) years, except this provision may be waived for single family residential lots at the discretion of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Staff Comment: The submitted Critical Areas Report identified seven wetlands along the trail corridor, all within the Black River Riparian Forest area (Exhibit 6, page 3-2 to 3-6). City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Hearing Examiner Recommendation Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 19 of 40 Forest area and further away from the proposed trail improvement. Two Category 11, three Category 111, and two Category IV wetlands were identified. Required buffers for the identified Category 11, 111, and IV wetlands are 100, 75, and 50 feet respectively. The existing developed gravel road is located along the wetland areas. Buffers are identified as less than the required buffer along some of the corridor where the existing gravel road is located because "buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions" per RMC 4-3-090D.2. d.iv. a. The proposed non-motorized/pedestrian bridge is an allowed activity in a wetland and associated buffer as there is no other reasonable location, is located within the Wetland 5 buffer area and not the wetland, clearing and excavation activities would be limited to the minimum necessary, and any impacts would be mitigation for. Recreational activities, including the proposed trail, is an allowed use within the Category 11, Ill, and IV wetland buffers. Such trails are limited in their width and surface material and location. The applicant has requested a Variance to exceed the development standards for trails within the wetland buffers. See FOF 20 and 21 for staff's analysis of the Variance request, the applicant's justification, and staff's recommended approval of the requests. The applicant proposes mitigation for the impacts to the shoreline area and associated wetland buffers. There would be no impacts to the wetlands (Exhibit 4). There would be wetland buffer impacts and buffer impacts are anticipated to be approximately 21,321 square feet of permanent impacts and 5,302 square feet of temporary construction impacts. The proposal would provide 98,297 square feet of restoration area for screening of the Heron colony, mitigation planting sites, and shoreline buffer vegetation conservation plantings (Exhibit 31). Proposed conceptual mitigation is detailed in the Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 6) and includes enhancement of approximately 0.68 acre of wetland buffer and 0.19 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 1 to mitigate the area of buffer displaced by the trail and enhancement of approximately 0.19 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 2 for ground improvements at bridge abutments. At Mitigation Site 1, the proposed enhancement would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of compost (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. At Mitigation Site 2, the proposed enhancement would include removal of invasive vegetation, rock and concrete pieces would be removed, soil and mulch installed, and native vegetation planted. Mitigation would consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that would benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. The goal of the mitigation effort is to augment the Black River corridor by establishing native vegetation and enhancing buffer functions of the stream and Wetland 7 in areas dominated by invasive species. These efforts would meld with previous and future enhancement activities performed by others. Other areas of City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation • LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 20 of 40 maintain effective buffer conditions and functions where existing tree cover is less than a density of twenty (20) trees per acre, and where existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing the trail from within the buffer. 3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects - View Obstruction and Visual Quality: 1 Maximum Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to a height of no more than 35 feet above average finished grade level except at specific locations. Staff Comment: No new buildings are proposed. The project is an at grade trail with a bridge that would extend less than 35 feet above the finished grade level where it would cross the Black River. The bridge height is approximately 7 % feet in height (Exhibit 30). `1 Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other structures and activities shall be considered in the design plans and their impacts avoided or mitigated. Staff Comment: Community disturbances have been considered in the design of the subject proposal. No permanent lighting is proposed. There is no water traffic within the Black River where the bridge would be placed. Land traffic may be impacted where trail improvements occur near Monster Rd SW and a traffic control plan is required with right- of-way use permits that will be submitted for. Noise is only anticipated during the construction of the trail corridor and analysis of the noise has been submitted by the applicant and is identified and evaluated within the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline report (Exhibit 8) and Bridge Biological Assessment (Exhibit 14). Compliant if Variance in FOF 21 and 22 is approved Other Design Standards: Any other design standards included in community plans or regulations adopted by the City shall be incorporated. Staff Comment: The project must meet Federal and Washington State Department of Transportation requirements for non -motorized multi -use trails. The subject project is identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, adoption date May 11, 2009. The proposed trail footprint and widths are consisted with the Federal and State transportation departments and the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (Exhibit x) if the trail width and surface variance is approved in the wetland buffers. if the variance is not approved the trail would not comply with the Federal and Washington State Department of Transportation requirements for non -motorized multi -use trials or the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. 4. Public Access 1 a. Physical or Visual Access Required for New Development: Physical or visual access to shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would either generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing legal access opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions for public access, including off -site facilities designated in the table Public Access Requirements by Reach in subsection D4f of this Section. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 21 of 40 Reach that public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park, that expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions, and that the existing trail system should be retained and possibly enhanced. The proposal to improve the existing trail corridor would implement the public access objectives for the reach and connect to the Green River Trail and larger regional trails system as identified in the City Shoreline Master Program. b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided. Non -water -dependent development and uses, as are proposed in the subject application, shall provide community and/or public access consistent with the specific use standards in subsection RMC 4-3-090E, Use Regulations, unless ecological restoration is provided. Staff Comment: Public access will not be directly provided to the ordinary high water mark or water edge, but public access within the Shoreline Overlay in specific areas such as the bridge crossing over the Black River and as the trail corridor runs parallel the Black and Green Rivers west of Monster Rd SW. 5. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. Staff Comment: Vegetated open space is located along the shoreline except for the Black River bridge crossing. The proposed trail alignment would use the existing trail/gravel road alignment that parallels portions of the Black River shoreline and vegetated open space. The proposed trail improvements would be buffered from sensitive ecological features such as the Heron colony and wetlands, if all mitigation is implemented. Tree and vegetation clearing along the trail alignment would occur within 10 and 20 feet of the trail (Exhibit 12) and new native plantings would be installed in those cleared areas. Fencing is proposed between the trail and sensitive features and the shoreline to control potential damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features where appropriate. For example, fencing locations to protect entry towards the Heron colony would be provided. iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where City trail or transportation plans and development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections RMC 4- 3-090D4di, D4dii, or D4diii, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions, shall prevail. Staff Comment: The proposal is based on the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan document with a 12 foot paved trail and 2-foot gravel shoulders on either side and is designed to meet Federal and State standards for multi -use nonmotorized trail systems City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 22 of 40 section. The proposal would have a trail greater than 4 to 6 feet in width and have an impervious surface. The applicant is requesting a Variance to approve the wider trail footprint and impervious asphalt surface. See FOFs 20 and 21 for staff's evaluation of the Variance request and recommendation that the Variance request be granted. Based on the Shoreline Policies identified above in FOF 17, the adopted City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, the Federal and State standards for multi -use non -motorized trails systems, and the proposed mitigations staff believes the proposed project best serves public access and provides protection and enhancement of the ecological functions and therefore the Federal and State standard of 12-foot paved trail with a 2-foot gravel shoulder should prevail. 6. Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the following design and other features: i. Relation to Other Facilities: (a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible. (b) Parking Requirements: N/A (c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City's transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within shoreline and non -shoreline areas of a site. Staff Comment: The proposal is a trail corridor within the shoreline area. The proposed trail improvement would not provide direct physical access to the shoreline. The proposal would connect to nearby streets, be accessible for handicapped and physically impaired persons, and provide connections to nearby trail systems including the Green River and Interurban trails. No parking is allowed within the Shoreline Natural Overlay area. The proposal would implement the City of Renton's multi -use trail plan for this trail corridor. ii. Design: (a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline's edge as feasible; provided, that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions. (b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques. Staff Comment: There are no residential areas located near the proposed trail corridor. Privacy impacts are limited if any. Noise is only anticipated for the construction of the trail corridor. See comments above related to the trail proximity to the shoreline, where no physical connection would be provided although viewable areas would be provided City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 23 of 40 iii. Use and Maintenance: (a) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity or in accordance with other provisions for guaranteeing installation through a monetary performance assurance. (b) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access facilities shall be maintained over the life of the use or development. Future actions by successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of required public access areas and associated improvements. (c) Public Access Must Be Legally Recorded: Public access provisions on private land shall run with the land and be recorded via a legal instrument such as an easement, or as a dedication on the face of a plat or short plat. Such legal instruments shall be recorded prior to the time of building occupancy or plat recordation, whichever comes first. (d) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public access facility shall be the responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted by a public or nonprofit agency through a formal recorded agreement. (e) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to the public twenty four (24) hours per day unless an alternate arrangement is granted though the initial shoreline permitting process for the project. Changes in access hours proposed after initial permit approval shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use. (f) Signage Required: The standard State -approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the public''s right of access and hours of access shall be installed and maintained by the owner. Such signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at the nearest connection to an off -site public right-of-way. Staff Comment: The proposal is a public trail that would be maintained by either King County DNRP/Parks or the City of Renton Park Department over the life of the improvement. Appropriate signage would be provided that state the hours of access and policies for trail use. The trail corridor is primarily on publicly owned park lands and right-of-way with the exception of the north -south railroad lines where the Tukwila and Renton boundary is located. Public access would be recorded on these railroad owned parcels. 7. Public Access Requirements by Reach: The following table identifies the performance standards for public access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required by the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Black River/Springbrook Reach A: Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Expansion of public access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced to connect to the Lake to Sound Trail. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 24 of 40 Staff Comment: The proposal provides for the performance standard of enhancing the 1 existing City of Renton trail as a segment of the regional King County Lake to Sound Trail corridor. The proposed trail improvements within the Riparian Forest are consistent with ecological functions. 8. Building and Development Location — Shoreline Orientation: Shoreline developments shall locate the water -dependent, water -related, and water -enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values. i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site. Staff Comment: The trail corridor uses an already established trail/gravel road, improved right-of-way, and undercrossing of developed railroad crossings over the Black River. The trail alignment within the Black River Forest Riparian area parallels a developed east - west railroad corridor. No wetlands would be impacted. The wetland buffers that would be impacted are minimal and the impacts would be mitigated, see subsection "2a. Environmental Effects — No Net Loss of Ecological Function" in FOF 18 above. ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany development proposals; provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel Tess than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments shall include the following general information: (a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other features. (b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features, together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological functions. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report (Exhibit 8), Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 6), Stream Discipline Report (Exhibit 7), Drainage Report (Exhibit 5), Endangered Species Act No Effect document (Exhibits 27 and 28), and NEPA Exemption by Washington State Department of Transportation (Exhibit 18) that describe impacts on ecological functions, water flow, wildlife, and other features. The discipline reports provide assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by the topography, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the trail corridor. No parking is allowed within the Shoreline Natural Overlay and no new parking areas are proposed. There are no other infrastructure improvements are proposed that may create shoreline impacts. iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 25 of 40 (b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of under -building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible. (c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights -of -way wherever feasible. (d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water -dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. Staff Comment: The proposed improvement does not require structural shoreline stabilization and is not anticipated to require such stabilization over its life. N/A iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or use that does not require a shoreline location shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless such development is required to serve approved water -oriented uses and/or developments or unless otherwise allowed in a High Intensity designation. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs and storage of materials shall be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of water -oriented developments and/or other approved uses unless a location closer to the water is reasonably necessary. v. Navigation and Recreation to Be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall not deprive other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water -related recreation shall be preserved. Staff Comment: The proposal is not anticipated to deprive other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters nor impact existing water -related recreation along the trail corridor. The applicant provides a description of the applicable navigable waters access rights in the Critical Areas Study that includes requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Clean Water Act regulations (Exhibit 6, page 1-4 to 1-5). 5. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources: i. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. Staff Comment: The project proposal and notice of application were provided to reviewing agencies including the State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP). No agency comments were provided from DAHP or other agencies that would require additional assessments or mitigation measures related to archaeological, historical, and cultural resources. As part of the SEPA DNS-M determination, staff recommended a similar mitigation measure, and a mitigation measure has been placed on the project; that if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources are found that construction activity stop and .... �..J:... ...�.: .-... ...:..L aL.... J. J. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 26 of 40 ii. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources. Staff Comment: See comment above under FOF 18, 5i. "Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources — Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required." iii. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a 1 development in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups. Staff Comment: See comment above under FOF 18, 5i. "Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources — Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required." ✓ iv. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible 9 to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies. Staff Comment: See comment above under FOF 18, 5i. "Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources — Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required." ,/ v. Access for Educational Purposes Encouraged: Land owners are encouraged to provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property. Staff Comment: See comment above under FOF 18, 5i. "Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources — Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required." 6. Use Regulations: a. Recreation Use: Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails, Over Land ✓ Over land public hiking and bicycle trails shall be provided when the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area. This use is a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use within the Natural Environment Shoreline Overlay provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area. Staff Comment: See FOF 19. Conditional Use analysis. Staff's recommendation to City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 27 of 40 evaluated in the Environmental Review Committee Report (SEPA), dated January 11, 2016, and by the applicant's submitted studies which have determined that there will be no net loss of ecological function and values of the Black River shoreline and associated wetlands (Exhibits 1 and 6). b. Recreation Use: Expansion of Existing Over -Water Trails ✓ Expansion of Existing Over -Water Trails: This expansion is a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use within the Natural Environment Shoreline Overlay. No new over -water trails shall be allowed unless it is part of the expansion of an existing over -water trail or over -water trail system. Such expansions shall be considered a conditional use if allowed in the Public Access Requirements by Reach Table, per RMC 4-3-090D4f, and if impacts are limited. Staff Comment: See FOF 19, Conditional Use analysis. Staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner that the use be allowed because the proposal meets the Conditional Use criteria. The proposed trail development is an expansion of an existing informal trail. The portion of proposed trail on City -owned property has been used as a trail since the City acquired the property in the early 1990s. Access to the trail is provided by sidewalks on the Monster Road bridge over the Black River which constitutes an existing over -water trail as part of the existing trail system (Exhibits 32 and 38). Improvements of the Monster Road bridge with the trail width and safety upgrades were considered. The upgrades and unknowns are considered too dangerous by the City of Renton's analysis given the likely negative impacts to the structural integrity of the bridge. The new bridge would provide a safe Black River crossing for the improved multi -use trail that the Monster Road bridge has provided historically. c. All Recreation Uses: Additional Standards i ✓ a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when: i. There is no net Toss of ecological functions, including on- and off -site mitigation. ii. Water -related and water -enjoyment uses do not displace water -dependent uses and are consistent with existing water -related and water -enjoyment uses. iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be appropriate to the ecological features and shoreline environment. iv. State-owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational uses for the public in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4). Staff Comment: The proposal meets the above criteria. The proposal would not cause net loss of ecological functions, (see analysis in subsection "2a. Environmental Effects — No Net Loss of Ecological Function" in FOF 18 above), displace water -dependent uses, and would provide the appropriate human activity for the shoreline environment where human activity would be limited to the trail use. I b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must bear a substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to the shoreline. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 28 of 40 i. Water -dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be located on the shoreline. ii. Water -related recreation such as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the shoreline. iii. Non -water -related recreation facilities shall be located inland. Recreational facilities with large grass areas, such as golf courses and playing fields, and facilities with extensive impervious surfaces shall observe vegetation management standards providing for native vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline. c. Over -Water Structures: Over -water structures for recreation use shall be allowed only when: i. They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the State. ii. They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional ecological sensitivity, especially aquatic and wildlife habitat areas. iii. They are integrated with other public access features, particularly when they provide limited opportunities to approach the water's edge in areas where public access is set back to protect sensitive ecological features at the water's edge. iv. No net loss of ecological functions will result. Staff Comment: The trail proposal includes a new bridge for crossing the Black River as the alternative to usage of the Monster Road Bridge that has been used historically for the trail connection across the river. The new bridge would allow opportunities for a substantial number of people to view and enjoy the Black River. The new bridge is not located near exceptional ecological sensitive areas where the location is between the Monster Road Bridge and Regional Sewer Treatment facility. d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the following criteria are considered: i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of the shoreline are protected. ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in consideration of natural features. iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of the local community. iv. Water -related and water -enjoyment uses do not displace water -dependent uses and uses are consistent with existing water -related and water -enjoyment uses. v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on the adioinine nronerty_ City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 29 of 40 designed public use. vii. Effects on private property are consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation or acquisition of private property. viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a balance between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of the shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process that provides for a balance of these elements. Staff Comment: The above criteria are met through the proposal. The proposal provides a balance between recreation and restoration of the shoreline area and the shoreline and sensitive areas along the trail alignment would be preserved during construction and once completed. d. Transportation: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities. Additional standards specific to trails are required. ✓ Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back further from the land/water interface. Staff Comment: The proposal would improve an existing gravel road and informal trail system. Most of the existing trail to be improved is within shoreline jurisdiction. The proposal would achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. 1 Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts. Staff Comment: The proposal would improve an existing gravel road and informal trail system. No natural, historical, archeological, or cultural sites have been identified that would require mitigation. 1 Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life of the facility. Staff Comment: The trail corridor is designed to prevent soil erosion, permit natural movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life of the facility. Analysis of the use of the trail corridor and construction of the corridor on soil, groundwater, and aquatic plants and animals were provided by the project applicant. The trail surface is considered to be a non -pollution generating surface. The trail improvement is a surface improvement, other than the new bridge support system, and would not impact natural groundwater movement. 1 All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal materials. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 30 of 40 report that outline how debris, grading of soils, and erosion control would be handled during construction (Exhibits 9 and 15). 1 Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection. Staff Comment: The proposal does not require shoreline protection as it is primarily an at grade trail, with the exception of the bridge crossing. The Bridge is designed to fully span the stream (Exhibit 30). 1 Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by using bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other features that provide for these functions. Staff Comment: The proposal does not impact passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement and uses an approximate 109-foot pedestrian bridge to span the Black River and is designed to be 6 feet above the base flood elevation. ✓ Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails. Staff Comment: The proposed non -motorized multi -use path allows as many compatible uses as feasible including for public viewpoints along the shorelines, alternative transportation travel modes, and active and passive recreational opportunities such as walking and bicycling. ✓ Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline trails. Staff Comment: The proposal would improve an existing gravel road and informal trail system. The proposal uses the existing road corridor and informal trail system and would be maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation of the natural areas the trail corridor passes through is part of the proposal through mitigation plantings. Approximately 98,297 square feet along the trail corridor is proposed to be restored and/or improved through removal of invasive species and plantings of native species (Exhibit 31). ✓ The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property owners including privacy and noise. Staff Comment: There are few property owners adjacent the proposal. The existing surrounding uses are industrial, railroad, and office park related. Limited noise is anticipated from the users of the trail corridor once construction is completed. 1 Over -water structures may be provided for trails in cases where: (a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other water bodies. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 31 of 40 I(c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface and groundwater movement. Staff Comment: The subject 1.2-mile trail segment includes a new bridge that would cross the Black River east of the existing Monster Road Bridge trail crossing and within proximity of the South County Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposal is part of a Federally funded King County regional non -motorized transportation corridor that will connect multiple jurisdictions and provide alternative transportation options and increased recreational opportunities. The proposal is a key missing link of the larger 16- mile regional Lake to Sound Trail corridor. ✓ Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider hard -surfaced trails with higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas. Staff Comment: The proposed trail corridor route uses an existing road corridor for much of the 1.2-mile segment. A 16 foot wide trail footprint is proposed, with a 12-foot asphalted surface in the center and 2-foot gravel edges. Because the corridor is primarily developed with an existing 10 to 12-foot wide gravel road, developed right-of-way, and undercrossing of multiple railroad lines, there are limited physical impacts anticipated by the proposed improvements. The trail is appropriate for the context and intended purpose, the design is in compliance with the Federal and State transportation department design criteria for multi -use paths. e. Accessory Uses: Parking Areas N/A Parking areas are not permitted in the Natural Overlay. Staff Comment: No new vehicle parking areas are proposed. Existing parking areas near the trail corridor are provided on either end of the 1.2-mile segment at Naches Ave SW in Renton and at Fort Dent in Tukwila. 19. Consistency with Renton Shoreline Conditional Use Criteria: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with conditional use permit criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted per RMC 4-9- 190.1.5. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to include many uses. Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance Development Standards and Analysis i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. Staff Comment: The Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay allows a number of outright permitted uses including aquaculture, and preservation and enhancement of nntnrnl font, ,roc nnrl nrn/nnirnl nrnrncevc nnri fich nnrl iAiilrllife ram,,rro .nnhnnromeni City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 32 of 40 conditional use approval are parks (neighborhood and regional), passive recreation, over land public hiking and bicycle trails, expansion of existing over -water trails, and structures for floodway management. The proposed improvement is a non -motorized multi -use trail corridor that is consistent with the range of uses anticipated for the Natural Overlay area. The trail improvement is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for increasing public access along the shoreline (Exhibit Pi, pages 2-21 through 2-23). ✓ ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. Staff Comment: Normal use of the project site includes flood control through the King County Flood District's Renton Wastewater facility on the Black River, railroad rights - of -way, the existing public trail corridor, public environmental interpretive uses throughout the Black River Forest Riparian area, and preservation of shoreline ecological processes and functions (Exhibit PJ, page 2-23). The trail improvement proposal would not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. The trail is consistent with the range of public uses anticipated for the Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay including parks and trails. The proposal is consistent with the Shoreline policies within the Renton Comprehensive Plan for increasing public access to the shoreline. The proposal is not expected to have a substantial impact on natural shoreline functions, would not adversely affect the flood control use, and would enhance public interpretive use of the shoreline area. v iii. Designs of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the Shoreline Master Program. Staff Comment: The proposed at grade trail would primarily use an existing road within the Black River Riparian Forest that parallels a developed east -west railroad corridor, the existing developed Monster Road SW right-of-way, existing railroad river crossings near the Black River, and existing developed park area at Fort Dent as the corridor route. Multiple trail corridor alternatives were considered and the proposed alignment and associated mitigation would result no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values. The corridor is already used as an informal trail connection and the proposed improvement to the corridor with the bridge is compatible with the surroundings of the site and the Renton Shoreline Master Program. v iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline policies within the Renton Comprehensive Plan, see FOF 17, for increasing public access to the shoreline through trails. v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160. Staff Comment: See FOF 22 below for analysis of criteria in WAC 173-27-160. 20. Consistency with WAC Shoreline Conditional Use Criteria: Per WAC 173-27-160, the purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the shoreline master program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure rnncictenry of the nrniect with the art and the Inral macter nrnaram I Icec whirh are rlaccifierl nr cat City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 33 of 40 be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area per WAC 173-27- 160.2. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance Criteria and Analysis ✓ a. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the shoreline master program. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with the policies of the RCW 90.58.020. The RCW states that "In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally." The policy goes on to state that, "Alternations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state..,.and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state." The proposal is also consistent with the Renton Shoreline policies as identified in FOF 16. v b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. Staff Comment: The proposed use would not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. See staff comments in FOF 21, Development Standards and Analysis number "ii"for further analysis. c. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program. Staff Comment: The proposed use is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area. See staff comments in FOF 21, Development Standards and Analysis number "i" for further analysis. '/ d. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located. Staff Comment: See FOF 18, subsection 2a. "No Net Loss of Ecological Function" for analysis that identifies that the proposal would not cause significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment. ,i e. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Staff Comment: The public interest is the sum -total of all the purposes of the State Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program. The proposal would not cause a substantial detrimental effect to public interest. As previously discussed in FOF 19, the proposed trail development is consistent with the purpose of providing public access to the shoreline area and would not have a substantial impact on natural shoreline functions, critical areas, public use of the shoreline, and current flood control. The proposal would enhance public interpretive use. f. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 34 of 40 similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects of the shoreline environment. Staff Comment: Any additional requests for similar trails in the area would be required to meet the same stringent criteria as the proposed trail improvement. Following an alternatives analysis for a trail corridor, the applicant found there are no other existing road corridors in the vicinity that a regional trail system could be developed within. The King County and City of Renton trail plans do not designate other regional trail corridors in the area. Because there are no other similar trail corridors proposed and no available routes for such a similar route, there are not likely to be cumulative impacts for a "like action." i 21. Consistency with Renton Shoreline Variance Criteria: RMC Section 4-9-1901.4.b lists 8 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider when making a recommendation on a Shoreline Variance application. The applicant requests a Variance from the development standards for trails within wetlands and wetland buffers. Specifically, the request is to allow a greater width for a trail, an impervious asphalt surface, and for the trail to be allowed within the inner 50 percent of a wetland buffer. Per RMC 4-3-050D.2.d.ix.f, Recreational Activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer 50 percent of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section. The applicant is requesting a Variance from criteria numbers 1 and 2 of RMC 4-3-050D.2.d.ix.f so that the proposed trail improvement can be greater than 4 feet in width, surfaced with asphalt, and within the inner 50 percent of wetland buffers within the Category II, III, and IV wetlands associated with the project. A Substantial Development Permit (RMC 4-9-1201.4) may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Shoreline Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: Compliance Criteria and Analysis i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted an analysis of the Variance criteria for the wider impervious surface trail proposal and contends that there are unique and exceptional conditions that apply to the site and that do not apply to other properties that are not a result of the applicant's actions (Exhibit 4, pages 2-24 to 2-27). These existing conditions are unique to this area and are not generally present in other portions of the city and will not set a precedent for other trail corridors: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A _ Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 35 of 40 informally as a public trail (the area west of Monster Road) and on a gravel road that was constructed prior to the acquisition of the property by the City of Renton and has been used by the public as a trail since that acquisition. • The trail corridor is crossed by the mainline of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads west of Monster Road which substantially impacts natural functions on this portion of the corridor and renders additional impacts minor. • Potential impacts of the proposed trail east of Monster Road will not have a substantial impact on natural shoreline functions because of the location of the BNSF to the north of the site and the adjacent quarry use, which establishes current proximity impacts to natural resources such as critical habitat on the site. • The trail is located as far from the Black River, existing wetlands, and the Great Blue Heron nesting colony on the site as is practical, given the adjacent east -west railroad corridor and other nearby uses. Staff concurs with the applicant's analysis and that there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applying to the subject trail corridor that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. Furthermore, the intended purpose of the project is to construct a missing link in a regional multipurpose trail corridor. In order for the project to comply with Federal and State multipurpose trail standards the strict application of the shoreline regulation trail design standards identified in wetland buffers would not allow the trail to meet Federal and State design standards. The requirement to meet these design standards would not apply to other properties in the vicinity or other trail connections within the same property. ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted an analysis of the Variance criteria for the wider impervious surface trail proposal and contends that imposition of a 4-foot wide, gravel or pervious surface, located in the outer 50 percent of a wetland buffer area would deprive the public of enjoyment of the benefits of the Lake to Sound regional trail corridor and interferes with reasonable use of the property (Exhibit 4, pages 2-24 to 2-27). The width, material, and location standards do not recognize the unique features of the site that make it especially suitable for a regional trail. The width, material, and location standards also do not recognize the existing conditions, with the existing informal pathway trail west of Monster Road and the existing gravel road to the east of Monster Road that are now used as a nonmotorized trail. The gravel road east of Monster Road that is the large percentage of the 1.2 mile trail improvement was constructed prior to the acquisition of the property by the City of Renton. Since the City of Renton purchased the property in the 1990s, the gravel road has been used as a trail. The location of the existing gravel road is closer to wetlands than the outer 50 percent of the buffers and is in excess of the 4-foot limit. Additionally, the applicant contests that the limit on type of trail surface is not City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 36 of 40 occur from the proposed impervious trail surface with large setbacks generally provided to receiving surface waters. Staff concurs with the above analysis submitted by the applicant. A small impervious footprint is proposed in comparison to the large undeveloped Black River Riparian Forest area. The proposed trail improvement is on an existing trail corridor and would cross the Black River with use of a new pedestrian bridge. The proposed regional trail would be built for the public as such this use in unique to public property owners. The request for a multipurpose trail that meets the Federal and State design standards is the minimum request to allow the City the same rights for a multipurpose trail as other public property owners in the same vicinity. The Shoreline public access requirements by reach, for the Black River/Springbrook Reach mentions this Lake to Sound trail proposal specifically as an opportunity to create greater public access (RMC 4-3-0900.4.f). The proposal implements the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan policies. Other Shoreline Overlay designations allow this type of use as outright permitted through an administrative decision. Because the Natural Overlay is considered an area with more sensitive shoreline ecological functions, a Hearing Examiner CUP process is required to determine there would be no substantial ecological impacts and that a no net loss of ecological functions and values would occur. iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. Staff Comment: The applicants analysis finds that the design of the project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program, compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The applicant's analysis is based on the Conditional Use Criteria met by the proposal (Allowed Use, Consistency with Purpose and Regulations, Compatibility with Permitted Uses, Public Use of Public Shorelines, Cumulative Impacts, and Public Interest) as outlined in FOFs 19 and 20. Staff concurs with the applicant's analysis. The Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity and that the design of the project is in harmony with the State and Renton shoreline policies. The Variance would allow for greater public access along the Black River and Green River shoreline area along an already heavily developed corridor. iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. Staff Comment: The variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. See FOF 21, Consistency with Renton Shoreline Variance Criteria, subsection "iii" above and FOF 17 Comprehensive Plan Compliance for analysis. v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 37 of 40 the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. Staff Comment: The applicant's justification for the Variance states that granting the variance recognizes that: • The trail width and location standards are not reasonably applicable to this specific case because the wetland functions they are designed to accommodate do not presently exist due to the presence of the existing gravel road, which is wider than the four (4) foot trail limit and is closer to the wetland than the outer 50% of the buffer. • The addition of impervious surface to the trail would not add impacts those already existing due to the gravel road. • The purpose of the Shoreline Management Act in enhancing public access and Renton Shoreline Policy SH-28 of providing emphasis on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan would not be fulfilled. Staff concurs with the applicant's justification and that granting the variance would not add significant if any impacts greater than those already existing because of the established gravel maintenance road corridor through the Black River Forest Riparian area. Support of the Variance allows for implementation of the Public Access Requirements of the Natural Overlay for the Black River/Springbrook Reach A and implementation of King County and City of Renton trail corridor and recreation plans, which would preserve the public interest. vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. Staff Comment: See FOF 20 below. N/A vii. Proposals that vary the size of the vegetation conservation buffer must provide for off -site mitigation in accordance with RMC 4-3-090F1k. 22. Consistency with WAC Shoreline Variance Criteria: WAC 173-27-170. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. The Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: Compliance Criteria and Analysis (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Staff Comment: The applicant provides justification for similar criteria as outlined in WAC 173-27-170 in FOF 21. The applicant provides further justification for the Variance, stating that the standards for construction of the trail corridor are the standards for Regional Trails adopted by both the City of Renton and King County as well as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Washington State Department of Transportation. In summary, the applicant states that the Variance request recognizes that: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 38 of 40 specific case because the wetland functions they are designed to accommodate do not presently exist because of the long-standing presence of the existing gravel road which is wider than the 4-foot trail limit and is closer in proximity to the wetland than the outer 50% of the wetland buffer. • The addition of impervious surface to the trail would not add impacts to those already existing due to the gravel road. • The purpose of the Shoreline Management Act in enhancing public access and Renton Shoreline policies of providing emphasis on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan would not be fulfilled. Staff concurs with the applicant's justification that there are extraordinary circumstances with the site that allow for the Variance approval, that the Variance implements shoreline policies including enhancing public access and developing a trail corridor through the Black River Shoreline Natural Overlay area. Further, the Variance would allow the AASHTO standards for nonmotorized trail corridors to be met. If the AASHTO standards cannot be met and strict application of the code was required, the proposed regional trail project would most likely lose the federal funding as it would not comply with the federal design standards. Without the federal funding, the implementation of the Shoreline Policies and the City's Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, as noted above under FOF 21 subsection "v," would not be fulfilled. Overall the variance from the wetland trail standards for this segment of the trail would further the public interest. (2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 39 of 40 Staff Comment: See comments above in FOF 22 "Consistency with WAC Shoreline Variance Criteria" subsection "1" and FOF 21. V (3) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Staff Comment: See comments above in FOF 22 subsection "1" and FOF 21. No navigation rights would be affected, see in FOF 18 subsection "8.v" Building and Development Location — Navigation and Recreation to be Preserved. ✓ (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Staff Comment: The area where the majority of the trail corridor is proposed is owned by the City of Renton and there are no other routes for a regional trail to be located within the shoreline area. See analysis of alternative regional trail routes in FOF 18, subsection "2a" No Net Loss - Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required. N/A (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. r J. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located in the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan designation and the Shoreline Master Program 'Natural' Overlay designation and complies with the goals and policies established within these designations, see FOF 16. 2. The subject site is located in the Shoreline Master Program 'Natural' Overlay designation and complies with the development standards established with this designation and with the requirements for a Substantial Development Permit, provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 17. 3. The subject site is located in the Shoreline Master Program overlay designated area requiring No Net Loss compliance of ecological functions and processes and complies with the No Net Loss standards City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation ' LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 40 of 40 4. The proposed trail corridor is located in the Shoreline Master Program overlay designated area and complies with the use and trail and transportation development standards provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 17. 5. The proposed trail corridor is located in the Shoreline Master Program overlay designated area and complies with the Conditional Use criteria provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 18 and FOF 19. 6. The proposed trail corridor is located in the Shoreline Master Program overlay designated area and exceeds the development standards for trail improvements and complies with the Variance criteria provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval see FOF 20 and FOF 21. K. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segment A, File No. LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V, as depicted in Exhibit 37, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated January 14, 2016. Project Name: Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segment A FR'4* Q�r '��j 1 .: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND Community ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Developm t REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, EXHIBITS Project Number: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Date of Hearing February 16, 2016 Staff Contact Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Project Contact/Applicant Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King County DNRP/Parks Project Location 1.2-Mile Trail Corridor, Naches Ave SW in Renton to Fort Dent Tukwila The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Environmental Review Committee Report Zoning Maps - Cities of Tukwila Renton and Tukwila Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Vicinity Map Permit Narrative and Justification, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Drainage Technical Information Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Stream Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Draft Geotechnical Report - Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inct for Parametrix, dated February 24, 2015 Environmental Checklist, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 17, 2015 Agency Comment; Muckleshoot Tribes, email dated May 13, 2015 Agency Comment; City of Renton Department of Community Services, dated July 23, 2015 Project Vicinity Map Biological Assessment — Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated August 2015 Construction Mitigation Plan Lake to Sound, 16-mile Conceptual Regional Trail Corridor 60% Construction Drawings, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 NEPA Exemption Determination, Washington State Department of Transportation document, dated September 12, 2012 and Addendum, WSDOT, dated November 3, 2015 Slopes Map, City of Renton Black River Bridge Location, Site and Exploration Plan, prepared by HWA GeoSciences, dated January 1, 2015 Wetlands Vicinity Map Stream and Wetland Buffer Impacts Maps Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Map CITY OF Report to the Hearing Examiner, EXHIBITS, Page 2 LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Exhibit 24: Project Drainage Basin Map Exhibit 25: Floodplain Map; 1995 DFIRM Exhibit 26: Response email to Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email from Kris Sorensen, dated December 10, 2015 Exhibit 27: Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A, prepared by Parametrix, dated October 24, 2011 Exhibit 28: Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A Pedestrian Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 30, 2015 Exhibit 29: Second Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email December 28, 2015 Exhibit 30: Bridge Ground Improvements Limits, Plan, and Elevation Exhibit 31: Landscape Plan and Mitigation Plantings Plan Exhibit 32: Photos of Trail Route Exhibit 33: Response to Muckleshoot Comments #2, email from Kris Sorensen, dated January 7, 2016 Exhibit 34: Floodplain Impact Area Exhibit 35: WRIA 9 — Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan Projects Exhibit 36: Advisory Notes Exhibit 37: Hearing Examiner Report Exhibit 38: City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, adopted May 11, 2009 Exhibit 39: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element and Appendix B Public Access Objectives by Reach Exhibit 40: Critical Areas Figure 3-1, prepared by Parametrix Exhibit 41: Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated Exhibit 42: Tree Retention Worksheet DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERCMEETINGDATE: January 11, 2015 Project Name: Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A Project Number: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Project Manager: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Owner: City of Renton; City of Tukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific Applicant/Contact: King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St; Seattle WA 98104 Project Location: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila Project Summary: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation. The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and is anticipated to last 12 months. Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 3.94 acres paved Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 5.26 acres w/ shoulder Site Area: 1.2 mile length in Total Building Area GSF: 5.26 acres w/ shoulder Tukwila & Renton • rs_LL n_l__ ,.____ r� r . t �y Ci i ✓ Park 0 ." e▪ e g. . IN, SI tf 4 \',. .3, ` .,4:11 Notes None 0 953 0 477 953 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere Legend City and County Boundary CN-Commercial Neighborhood L j Other 2 CV -Center Village l.. City of Renton • CA -Commercial Arterial Zoning 111 UC-Urban Center RC -Resource Conservation ® CD -Center Downtown R1-Residential 1 du/ac •"1 COR-Commercial Office/Residential R4-Residential 4 du/ac3 CO -Commercial Office R6-Residential - 6 DU/AC IL -Industrial - Light R8-Residential 8 du/ac 51 IM-Industrial - Medium R10-Residential 10 du/ac IH-Industrial - Heavy City ofn Information Technology - GIS RPntnnM,nSllnnnrt, hRuntnmua nnv This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be • 1.11 t POTENTIAL , ANNEXATION ,AREAz • ItAr.--NN,. ANN • I r.7 1311 IL ' r;Ftrril. li'gPill'i ; 11--.1571 1.1 ANNA • 4 3 LTA .-1111A'A ...... Pt ''••• iprpre:lr 31i I ;RN,- .a:rUll rred.. nJI WL , '41.11. • r "illft.-1 ! I Zoning Districts, Overlays, and Sub -Areas 11 0A,N LArrIN LEA ANON OTA0 INAINEA,NAINNE LANA SANAA Parc Seca.. NAPE rayttai Amnia /401. IS VON NE* EA4FIN 0/1/Al Pfile AA Pew, Nom, Canwer PANNEAD01 CNA. PPIPPINAN Camay PAN NOON. WAN Com. • s Anup ONv Oreinet rvs EANIA MCA INAN ONNAPANNNI PPP. 11,L OPAYNINENNI IAN W.. INs OEN O 00ca RCC NENENIONNeva CNN INC INIO.N.AANCarEANA CNIP PC ANNIE Can,. POI PAEAN! Conenp,A1 AliNe ELI CAINE. 001 NANA. o UAINANal NI Nor, NAN. 000 ANANANNPANNIENININIE PAMPA 0.01 INNIAIDAN NAME ',ANNAN PANNE • 701...[..4 • NM TVOIO TANN PAN CAA, 11•10. Carom City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map I inch • I 000 IN L.9,0,.:0EINANA Prir.pcs :40 No*, ILIZPITY A :TAN rA CNNIAN .1.411 .1114,7: 6.0,V UP. 111.0 1J-0.1 0,1 .3r0.1131.1. 1,Incoln• raNron,e0 2,7 w,no ,1,11u0.41.1(.0, t.,,,,Ipoor: it,t5 .1.14 W..1,1:01etan r-co4,1 11:0f1 f-••••,,40,1 i ..7 I 1 • 11 • , 1- ! I IA0 s�+ 0 CUT ?1 T 4 11PRJFU.R S9 AveAve 9_�....�._!;'!_ City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Overlay Notes None O 953 0 477 953 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Legend City and County E3oundary Other Ei City of Renton Environment Designations Natural Shoreline High Intensity El Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy n .hlricriirtinnc — Type Np Type Ns Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupporttRentanwa.gov /crania This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate. current, or otherwise reliable. EXHIBIT 4 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared for King County King County 410 April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 5 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com EXHIBIT 6 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for King County .7770111117 April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 7 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Stream Discipline Report RECEIVED APR 17 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Prepared for King County NSW '7.:L71111111111111111 April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 8 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound —Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for King County MEI April 2015 Prepared by parametrix EXHIBIT 9 Entire Document DRAFT Available Upon Request DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 February 24, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. HWAGEOSCIENCES ING EXHIBIT 10 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENT Entire Document Available Upon Request Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April 9, 2015 • 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov EXHIBIT 11 From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.usj Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty -protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). ( see page 7-75 in http://vour.kingcountv.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre -spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. • 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the Toss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante [mailto:SMiranteRentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (misty.blairc ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATTACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. EXHIBIT 12 COMMUNITY SE DEPARTMENT City of iLtn MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2015 TO: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner FROM: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: Revised Lake To Sound Trail Review Comments LUA15-000257 Upon further review of the Lake to Sound Trail project, the Community Services Department would like to submit the following revised comments: 1. There are several locations in the Plan Set where cottonwood and alder trees are proposed to be removed along the trail with no indication about how the area is to be restored. After reviewing the Final Critical Areas Report, only some of the tree removal locations are proposed to be restored. It is recommended that all disturbed areas noted in the Plan set be restored; more detail is required. In addition, we recommend that the trunks of the trees that are to be removed, be left on the ground. Stumps should be ground and the area re -vegetated. 2. There is no landscaping plan for planting along the trail. A landscape plan should be submitted as a condition of approval for the CUP and that the replanting plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 3. In areas identified with a 20' tree removal area, a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers , followed by densely planted shrubs and ending with trees in the outer 20' in order to minimize trail upheaval caused by tree roots. 4. The current plans call for Cottonwood trees only to be removed within the 20' buffer. Five additional trees have been identified to be included for removal, two of which are alder trees. Please add the additional five trees for removal. 5. In areas identified with a 10' tree removal area from the paved edge of the trail (treed section north of Naches), a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers followed by densely planted shrubs. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2015 6. Areas along the trail that have had clearing, tree removal, restoration, and at rest stops should include a split rail -type fence to deter public access into the riparian area. This should be noted on the plans; a detail of the fencing should be included. 7. Temporary irrigation should be included for all areas that are to be restored and for the duration of the 5 year monitoring plan. Include plans and details. 8. Interpretive Signage, particularly at rest stops about the habitat at the Black River Riparian Forest should be included as part of the design. 9. "Sensitive Area — "Please Stay on Trail" signage should be located at rest stops, near the split rail fencing and other locations as determined. 10. A greater variety of plant materials should be added to the plant list such as Ribes spp.- native currant, Vaccinium ovatum — Evergreen huckleberry and Rosa spp.- single flowers native roses. 11. The City's standard bollard and bench details should be considered. cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Terry Flatley, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator EXHIBIT 14 Parametrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIEN August 28, 2015 Mr. Kris Sorensen Economic & Community Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A — Biological Assessment 719 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 200 I SEATTLE, WA 98104 I P 206.394.3700 CITY OF 1 ENTOIN RECEIVED V AUG 31 2015 BUILDING DIVISION Hi Kris, On behalf of Jason Rich, King County Parks, I am submitting the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project. This submittal responds to your email request dated August 18th. Please note that, because the project has federal transportation funding, the BA follows the template and guidance used by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration is the federal lead agency. We've provided some additional language below intended to assist you with your floodplain compliance needs. In addition to fulfilling the requirements for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation between the Federal Highway Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the enclosed BA supports compliance with the terms of NMFS' 2008 biological opinion for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City of Renton, as the local jurisdiction with permitting authority under the NFIP, is required to demonstrate that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA -listed salmonids. The project element with the greatest potential to affect ESA -listed salmonids or their habitat is the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The potential effects of bridge installation and operation are the primary subject of analysis in the BA. Documentation of the compliance of the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A pedestrian bridge with the terms of the NMFS NFIP biological opinion is presented in Section 6 (Floodplain Analysis) of the BA. Potential effects of other elements of the proposed trail are addressed in Appendix A, October 2011 No -effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A. In addition, as discussed in the April 2015 City of Renton Critical Area Study for the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project, the project will result in no net fill below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. No compensatory storage is required or proposed. The findings in these analyses support the .determination that the Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA -listed salmonids. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss further or need additional information in order to advance the processing of the shoreline conditional use permit application. Best regards, Jenny Bailey Consultant Project Manager Cc: Jason Rich, King County Jenny Bailey, Parametrix File Lake to Sound Trail —Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment Prepared for King County Parks King County August 2015 Prepared by Parametrix • EXHIBIT 15 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME • City of Construction Mitigation Description Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Construction Mitigation Description: Please provide 5 copies of a written narrative addressing each of the following: • Proposed construction dates (begin and end dates) Proposed construction dates are unknown and will be dependent upon permitting restrictions, fish windows, seasonal rain conditions, and habitat restrictions for nearby nesting herons. • Hours and days of operation Construction operations will be generally limited between Monday and Friday during an 8-hour consecutive period between 7:00am and 6:00pm. • Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling (i.e. weekends, late nights) Night, weekend and holiday work will not be permitted. • Proposed hauling/transportation routes Haul and construction site access with be from Monster Road and Naches Avenue, depending on the section of trail to be constructed. • Preliminary traffic control plan Traffic control along Monster Road will generally include single -lane traffic and sidewalk closures using flaggers and standard WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control plans. Traffic control at Naches Avenue and the trailhead will be limited to parking restrictions; this is a cul-de-sac and serves as parking for infrequent trail users. • Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Temporary erosion and sediment control measures from the King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009), Appendix D, will be applied during construction to limit dust, erosion, mud, and noise and other noxious characteristics of the construction. EXHIBIT 16 EXHIBIT 17 — v (cc o z g E — 0 g 1 O g CAL+ U v W J � > :e— ns ♦Ln V '9`ev/ fr4// 4po 4,ne. � w �Re �t 94e se, i15 N� SmCRI 0 0 fa- COVER SHEET GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO N y EXHIBIT 18 jWashington State Department of Transpor NEPA Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form Federal Aid Project Number: CM2017(110) Date: 11/3/2015 Intent of Submittal: Preliminary [] Final ®Re -Evaluate Agency: King County Department of Transportation County: King County Project Title: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Beginning MP: NA Ending MP: NA Miles: 1.1 Township(s): 23N Range(s): 4E Section(s): 13 14 Part 1- Project Description The Lake to Sound Trail is a continuous, 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound through the Cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines. This project develops a multi- purpose, nonmotorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail and is 1.06 miles in length. Included in the project is a 114 ft. pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Avenue SW (City of Renton), crossing Monster Road SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park (City of Tukwila). Part 2 — Categorical Exclusion Select one CE from 23 CFR 771.117 (CE Guidebook - Appendix A) that fits the entire project: (c)(3) NEPA Approval Signatures :J Local Agency Approving Author'ty 2 Regional ocal Pr J Engineer Date i2/0 Date Local Programs Environmental Engineer Date C r 1)7 Federal Highway Xdministration Date Completed by (Print Official's Name): Lindsey Miller Telephone (include area code): 206-477-3549 E-mail address: Lindsey.miller@kingcounty.gov O,rra 1 elf Q Part 3 - Permits, Approvals & Right of Way (ROW) Yes No Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval ❑ Z Water Rights Permit ❑ /1 Corps of Engineers ❑ Sec. 10 ❑ Sec. 404 El Nationwide Type ❑ 0 Water Quality Certification — Section 401 issued by ❑ Individual Permit No. ❑ ►/ Coast Guard Permit ❑ /1 Tribal Permit(s) (if any) ❑ ® Coastal Zone Management Certification E ❑ Other Permits (List) Right-of-way use permits,, City of Renton and Tukwila: Conditional Use ►1 ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Permit ❑ Z Forest Practices Act Permit CI ❑ Hydraulic Project Approval permit, City of Tukwila ❑ ROW acquisition required? If yes, amount 0 ❑ Local Building or Site Development Permits needed: 6,000 square feet ►/ ❑ Local Clearing and Grading Permit ❑ Z Is relocation required? ►1 ❑ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ❑ 1Has ROW already been acquired for this project? If (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction yes, attach responses to Appendix F in the CE Guidebook: ❑ Z Has an offer been made or have negotiations begun to acquire ROW for this project? If yes, attach responses to Appendix F in the CE Guidebook. 0 z Is a detour required? If yes, please attach detour information. CI Shoreline Permit ❑ I1 State Waste Discharge Permit el TESC Plans Completed Other Federal Agencies - Does the project involve any federa federal agencies? ❑ Yes ►1 No If Yes, please describe. properties, approvals or funding from other/additional Part 4 - Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work in or affect any of the following? Identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental information if necessary. 1. Air Quality - Identify any anticipated air quality issues. • Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? ►/ Yes ❑ No If Yes, identify exemption — please refer to Appendix G in the CE Guidebook for a list of exemptions. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Is the project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? ® Yes ❑ No. If Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted: June 25, 2015 • Is the project located in an Air Quality Non -Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone or PM 10? ® Yes 0 No DOT Form 140-100EF Page 2 of 11 RPVkSPd S/201S Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 2. Critical and Sensitive Areas • Is this project within a sole source aquifer ❑ Yes ® No If located within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt from EPA approval? if Yes, please list exemption: If No, date of EPA approval: • Will this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? 0 Yes ® No Explain your answer. The project area provides habitat to Great Blue Heron and Bald Eagles. No nests were observed within the clearing limits of the bridge; the remainder of the project will occur in areas currently improved gravel paths (old railroad). To minimize any potential for disturbance to breeding herons outside of the immediate project area, activity restrictions will be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Additionally, noise in the surrounding area was typical of an industrial area (Renton Concrete Recyclers, Stoneway Concrete Black River, and Rabanco Black River Transfer Station). To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project will implement measures to minimize impacts to nesting birds. The Black River and nearby Duwamish river provides habitat for salmonids including coho, sockeye, and chum. No in -water work will occur as part of this project. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affected by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade -related effects. The bridge will be oriented on a north -south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The effects of clearing (mostly invasive species) in the riparian area will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long teen, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. Is this project within one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting territory, winter concentration area or communal roost? El Yes 0 No Please see the attached Bald Eagle Form for more information. • Are wetlands present within the project area? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, estimate the impact in acres: 0 acres Please attach a copy of•the proposed mitigation plan. Direct stream and wetland impacts have been completely avoided. Approximately 1 acre of native species would be planted to compensate for stream and wetland buffer impacts. DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 3 of 11 3. Cultural Resources/Historic Structures — Identify any historic, archaeological or cultural resources present within the project's Area of Potential Effects. Does the project fit into any of the exempt types of projects listed in Appendix 1 of the CE Guidebook? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, note exemptions below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence: April 27, 2015 (original concurrence on 9-15-2011) Date of Tribal consultation(s) (if applicable): Adverse effects on cultural/historic resources? 0 Yes ® No if Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA: 4. Floodplains and Floodways Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, is the project located within a 100-year floodway? ® Yes ❑ No Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No if Yes, describe impacts. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail is adjacent to the Green and Black Rivers with a finished grade as close as possible to existing grade while still providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. However, between A -Line Stations 1+00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. This is the only fill and excavation activity below the floodplain elevation, and the net difference will not impact floodplain storage or function. DOT Form 140-100EF Page 4 of 11 Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste — identify potential sources and type(s). a) Does the project require excavation below the existing ground surface? ® Yes ❑ No b) Will groundwater be encountered? ® Yes ❑ No c) Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? ® Yes ❑ Na d) Is this site located in an undeveloped area (i.e. no buildings, parking, storage areas or agriculture? ❑Yes ® No e) Is the project located within a one -mile radius of a known Superfund Site? ❑ Yes ® No f) Is this project located within a'/: -mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology databases? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, check the appropriate boxes below. ® Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), State Cleanup Site (SCS), or Independent Cleanup Program (ICP) ® Underground Storage Tank (UST) ® Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) lZ Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) g) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? ® Yes ❑ No (Please identify any properties not identified in the Ecology or ERS database search as an attachment — name, address and property use). In the September 2012 Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Hazardous Materials Discipline Report, five Ecology regulated sites, located adjacent to the proposed trail, were identified as having the potential to release contaminants to shallow soils or surface water based on their generator status or active permits. The site reconnaissance (conducted on November 2, 2015) confirmed that, with the exception of Multichem Analytical Services, the regulated sites located adjacent to the project corridor were still in operation. No spills or releases were identified for these facilities during the review of Ecology's FSID database and no evidence of spills or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on the lack of regulated USTs and lack of suspected or confirmed spills or releases; the risk of encountering contamination from these regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the project corridor, is low. h) Based on the information above and project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to generate, acquire or encounter contaminated soils, groundwater or surface water? ❑ Yes ® No Please explain: As part of the Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Addendum (dated November 3, 2015) which expands the project scope to include the construction of the pedestrian bridge; King County conducted a review of Ecology's Facility/Site Identification System (F/SiD) and compared the updated review to the original screening (2012). Based on a review of Ecology's F/SID (http://www.ecv.wa.gov/fs/, accessed on October 15, 2015) no National Priorities List sites (Superfund sites) were located within a one -mile radius of the project limits. A review of Ecology's F/SID revealed eight sites within %2 mile radius of the project corridor that had documented contamination. Seven of the eight sites were immediately eliminated from further consideration based on the criteria described below: • A hazardous materials and waste professional reviewed each site using a screening process to identify sites of concern where it was likely that contamination would be encountered during excavation and/or dewatering. A site may pose a liability to the project if the site is located within close proximity (adjacent to the proposed project area), or hydraulically upgradient, or has a confirmed release of hazardous materials or petroleum products to soils or groundwater (traditionally 1/2 mile or Tess in distance). A %- mile search radius was selected because it was judged to encompass areas from which contamination DOT Form 140-100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 5 of 11 could reasonably be expected to migrate to the project footprint. • Seven of the eight sites (DJB Trucking—FS#2304, Arco Station & Mini Mart— FS#4552344, Anderson Joseph B — FS#8509656, , Becker Trucking Inc. Tukwila — FS# 17036781, Jumbo Deli — FS# 59337954, K & N Meats — FS#72559666, and Southland Facility — FS# 99853513) were considered to have a very low likelihood of adversely impacting the project and were eliminated from further consideration due to one or more of the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. The eighth facility, Graphic Packaging International Inc. — FS# 14693954— located at 601 Monster Rd, was physically situated about 500 feet southeast of the pedestrian bridge foundations (which is the only location within the project limits where project excavations will be deep enough to encounter groundwater and any contaminants that have migrated from off -site sources). To further characterize the site, King County reviewed the City of Renton permit history for the site(https://permitsearch.mybuildingPermit.cam/SimpleSearch.aspx, accessed on October 31, 2015) and historical aerial photographs at Historical Aerials by NETROnline (http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed October 31, 2015), and contacted the Ecology Site Manager via e-mail (November 3, 2015), and had a phone interview with the Tricia Sweat the Health, Safety, and Environmental ivianager of Graphic Packaging (November 3, 2015). Based on a review of the available information, the underground vaults that resulted in a release to soil and groundwater were abandoned in place in the late 1980s (about 700 feet southeast of the bridge foundations). Between the early 1990s and 2001, a number of monitoring wells were installed on the site to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination. The Ecology LUST database notes (as provided by Donna Musa Site Manager for Ecology) stated that, in 1997, the petroleum hydrocarbon impacts appeared to be localized around the abandoned oil/water separator (one of the underground vaults) and the adjacent monitoring wells, and that the results from the perimeter monitoring wells suggested that the impacts were generally confined to the site. Ms. Sweat reported that a contractor was hired in October 2015 to remove the abandoned vaults (including a sanitary sewer lift vault and the oil/water separator and its associated waste tank) and the surrounding impacted soil (this statement was confirmed by the City of Renton permit summary for the site). Based on the lack of off -site migration of the detected groundwater contamination, the recent removal of the source of the groundwater contamination, and the direction of groundwater flow (westerly); it is unlikely for the project to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil as a result of off -site migration from this facility. It is unlikely for WSDOT to assume liability for cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater as part of this project for the following reasons: • None of the adjacent properties appeared to have evidence of routine spills or releases to surface water or soils; • None of the adjacent properties (regulated or otherwise) had documented releases to soil, surface water or groundwater; • The eight sites located within Yz mile of the project limits, that were identified as having a confirmed or suspected release to soils or groundwater, were deemed unlikely to migrate contaminants into the project footprint for the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; o groundwater impacts were confined to the site and the source was removed; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter DOT Form 140-100EF Page 6 of 11 groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. For these reasons, it is concluded that no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from the proposed project. No further investigation is warranted at this time. It is recommended that a HazMat Specialist be contacted if additional project changes are made that can potentially alter the conclusions made in this updated investigation; such as the addition of other project work that requires excavations below 10 feet bgs (local groundwater elevation), realignment, or property acquisitions. Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated November 3, 2015 for more information. If you responded Yes to any of the following questions (5A-5C, 5F and 5H), contact your Region LPE for assistance as a "Right - Sized" HazMat Analysis Report/Memorandum most likely will be required. 6. Noise Does the project involve constructing a new roadway? ❑ Yes ® No 1s there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Does the project increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Is there a change in the topography? ❑ Yes ® No Are there auxiliary lanes extending 1-1A miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? ❑ Yes ® No If you answered Yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 7. 4(f)/6(f) Resources: parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, historic properties, wild & scenic rivers, scenic byways - (cc,' ,' c k,.4—d. '&e Ca" c. tde . Cb f� a. Please identify any 4(f) properties within the project limits and the areas of impacts. (t.yet\i c The Black River Riparian Forest, a park property owned by the City of Renton; cue SI Fort Dent Park, a park property owned by the City of Tukwila; and an archaeological site, located in the north end of Fort Dent Park, eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Please see the attached 4(f) documentation. b. Please identify any properties within the project limits that used funds from the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act. None c. Please list any Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Byways within the project limits. None DOT Form 140-100EF chnh' Page 7 of 11 8. Agricultural Lands — Are there agricultural Lands within 300 feet of the project limits? ❑ Yes No If Yes, describe impacts: Are impacted lands considered to be unique and prime farmland? ❑ Yes el No If Yes, date of project review by Natural (Resource Conservation Service (NRCS): 9. Rivers, Streams (continuous or intermittent) or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Green River (09.0001) Black River (09.0004) b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Black and Green Rivers are both located in WRIA 9. The proposed trail alignment is adjacent to the south side of the Black River and will cross over the Black River on a new pedestrian bridge. 10. Tribal Lands — Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, trust and fee lands. Please do not list usual and accustomed area. Not applicable. 11. Water Quality/Stormwater Will this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOT's HRM, DOE's stormwater management manual for eastern/western Washington or a local agency equivalent manual? ►� Yes ❑ No If No, explain proposed water quality/quantity treatment for the new and any existing impervious surface associated with the proposed project. Amount of existing impervious surface within the project limits: 54,450 square feet (1.25 acres) Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of this project: 37,424 square feet (0.86 acres) The trail is considered a non -pollutant generating surface. It is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak flow to equal to or greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second. The trail has been designed to direct runoff to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. Part 4 - Environmental Considerations (continued) 12. Previous Environmental Commitments Describe previous environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project — if any. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-term maintenance of the trail; however, King County will maintain it until an agreement is reached (please see the Long -Term Maintenance Commitment Letter dated and signed February 12, 2013). DOT Form 140-100EF Page 8 of 11 13. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exemptions noted in Appendix L of the CE Documentation Guidebook? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, please note the exemption and appropriate justification in the space below. If No, are minority or low-income populations located within the limits of the project's potential impacts? ® Yes ❑ No If No, attach appropriate data to support findings. If Yes, describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Findings should be confirmed using at least two information sources. Please refer to the CE Guidebook for more information. King County reviewed Washington State Report Card and an EPA summary of United States Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012, data for low income and minority populations within % mile of the project limits. Based on the school data, 80.7 percent of the students at the closest elementary school qualify for free or reduced price meals and the school has a total minority population of 95.9 percent. The ACS data indicated that 80 percent of the study area population consisted minority populations and 24 percent of the population (5 years or older) speaks English "less than very well" (which is above the LEP threshold of 5 percent of the population). Exceedance of the LEP threshold for people in the study area requires public outreach. As such, future outreach will include: updates and information on the King County website and signs posted on site to communicate the project details in Vietnamese, Tagalog, Chinese and Spanish. Because the right of way acquisitions are from railroad companies, there are no relocations or detours, a public outreach plan will be developed and implemented to include the needs of minority populations, and the project will affect non -motorized users equally; King County does not anticipate any adversely high and disproportionate effects from this project on any minority or low-income populations identified in the area. We conclude that the project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 13166, as supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Part 5 - Biological Assessments and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat present within the project's action area? ® Yes ❑ No Attach species listings. Affected ESA Listed Species Oregon Spotted Frog proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? Yellow -billed Cuckoo suitable habitat? Spotted Owl management areas, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Western Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? Is the project within 0.5 mile of marine waters? If Yes explain potential effects on 2. Will any construction work occur within 0.5 mile of any of the following? ❑ Yes El No ❑ Yes V No ❑ Yes Z No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock -drilling or rock -scaling activity within one mile • of an of the following? 1111 [l No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes El No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes Z No. DOT Form 140-100EF r Page 9 of 11 Killer Whales and on Marbled. Murrelet foraging areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? ❑ Yes its No O Yes ® No Grizzly Bear suitable habitat? ❑Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Gray Wolf suitable habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 0 Yes ® No Canada Lynx habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 0 Yes ® No Columbia White-tailed Deer suitable habitat? Woodland Caribou habitat? O Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No O Yes ® No O Yes ® No Streaked Horned Lark designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Taylor's Checkerspot designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Mazama Pocket Gopher designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Eulachon designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Rockfish proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? A mature coniferous or mixed forest stand? 4. Will the project involve any in -water work? ❑ Yes ® No 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent ® Yes ❑ No waterbody that either supports or drains to waterbody supporting listed fish? 6. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetland, pond or lake that ® Yes ❑ No is connected to any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. Does the action have the potential to directly or indirectly impact designated critical 0 Yes ® No habitat for salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? ®yes 0 No 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated stormwater runoff or utilize water from a waterbody that supports or drains into a listed -fish supporting waterbody? ®Yes ❑ No 9. Will construction occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes go to 9a. 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve clearing, ® Yes 0 No grading, filling or modification of vegetation or tree -cutting? 10. Are there any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species located within 0 Yes ® No the project limits? If Yes, please attach a list of these plant species within the action area. 11. Does a mature coniferous or mixed forest stand occur within 200' of the project site? ® Yes ❑ No Analysis for No Effects Determination — If there are any Yes answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis is required. Attach additional sheets if needed. An analysis under the Endangered Species Act determined that the project will have No Effect on listed species or critical habitat, and No Adverse Effect on Essential Fish Habitat. The only listed species with the potential to occur in the project area are salmonids which will not be present in the project area during the summer months due to unfavorable river conditions. In addition, no in -water work is proposed. Effects to critical habitat are not expected because riparian habitat in the project area is poor quality, and effects to this habitat during project construction have been minimized. Please see the attached analysis for additional details. ❑ Yes r No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ -Y-erEi O Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes QZI No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes El ® Yes No g Yes ❑ N DOT Form 140-100EF Page 10 of 11 Analysis for RRMP ESA 4(d) determination for NMFS — A local agency must be certified by the Regional Road Maintenance Forum to utilize 4(d). Maintenance Category (check all that apply) ❑ 1. Roadway Surface ❑ 2. Enclosed Drainage Systems ❑ 3. Cleaning Enclosed Drainage Systems ❑ 4. Open Drainage Systems ❑ 5. Watercourses and Streams ❑ 6 Stream Crossings ❑ 7. Gravel Shoulders ❑ 8. Street Surface Cleaning ❑ 9. Bridge Maintenance ❑ 10. Snow and Ice Control Describe how the project fits in the RRMP 4(d) Program: ❑ 11. Emergency Slide/Washout Repair ❑ 12. Concrete 0 13. Sewer Systems ❑ 14. Water Systems ❑ 15. Vegetation Effect Determinations for ESA and EFH If each of the questions in the preceding section resulted in a "No" response or if any of the questions were checked "Yes," but adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect" determination, then check "No Effect" below. If this checklist cannot be used for Section 7 compliance (i.e., adequate justification cannot be provided or a "may effect" determination is anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is required. ® No Effect ❑ NLTAA - Date of Concurrence ❑ LTAA— Date BO Issued ❑ RRMP 4(d) US S/ EFH Determination r i'L1.07()— El. No Adverse Effect /// ❑ Adverse Effect— Date of NMFS concurrence Part 6 - FHWA Comments DOT Form 140-100EF Page 11 of 11 �Washington State war Deperbnent of Transportation Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary Part 1 Project Description Federal Aid Project Number CM2017(110) Route Near State Route 900 Date 9-12-2012 Intent of Submittal ❑ Preliminary ► 4 Final ❑ Re -Evaluate Agency King County Department of Trans . ortation Federal Program Title 20.205 ® other Project Title Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Beginning MP Townships 23 N Ending MP Ranges 04 E Mites 1.1 Sections 13 County King County Project Description - Describe the proposed project, including the purpose and need for the project. This project develops preliminary engineering for the construction ofa multi -purpose, non motorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A travels through the Black Forest from Neches Avenue SW (Renton) to arrive at Fort Dent Park (Tukwila). Part 2 Environmental Classification NEPA 0 SEPA ❑ Categorically exempt per WAC 197-11-800 C.( Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) ❑ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ❑ Adoption ❑ Addendum 0 Supplemental (For informational purpose only) • Class 1- Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 0:1 Class II - Categorically Excluded (CE) CE Type (from 23 CFR 771.117) (a)(3l ® Projects Requiring Documentation (Documented CE) (LAG 24.22) ❑ Programmatic CE MOU • Class III - Environmental Assessment (EA) Local Agency Approving Authority Regional Local Prog s Engineer • NEPA Approval Signatures Highways and Local Programs Environmental Engineer Date Date /7 /ice :,9/7 Date / ;4. 111:k Federal Highway Ainistration Date Completed By (Print Official's Name) Tina Morehead Telephone (include aree code) 206-296-3733 Fax (include area code) 206-296-0567 E-mail Part 3 Permits and Approvals Required Yes No Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval ❑ ® Corps of Engineers 0 Sec. 10 ■ Nationwide Type ■ Sec. 404 • ❑ Water Rights Permit =' Water Quality Certification - Sec. 401 • Individual Permit No. Issued by • El Coast Guard Permit ❑ =' Tribal Permit(s), (if any) r ® Coastal Zone Management Certification ® ❑ Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Permit • ❑ El Forest 181 Hydraulic Practice Act Permit Project Approval ►: ❑ Other Permits (List): Right of Way Use Permits - Cities of Renton and Permits TukwilatiConditional Use Permit - City of ■ ►' Local Building or Site Development Tukwila ® 03 ■ 0 Local National Clearing and Grading Permit Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ® 0 ROW acquisition required? if yes, amount needed 6,000 SF ® • .' (NPDES) ❑ Shoreline * State ■ TESC Baseline General for Construction Permit Waste Discharge Permit Plans Completed 0 0 ■ El Is relocaton required? ® Has ROW already been acquired for this project? ►: Is a detour required? If yes, please attach detour information. Part 4 Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work in or affect any of the following? Identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental information if necessary. 1. Air Quality Is the project If Yes, date - Identify any anticipated air quality issues. included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? ► 4 Yes ❑ No Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted. 10/1/10 Is the project ozone, Is the project If yes, identify Air Quality: located in an Alr Quality Non -Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, or PM10? ® Yes ❑ No exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? ® Yes 0 No exemption, please refer to appendix H in the ECS Guidebook for the list of exemptions: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities (ECS Guidebook. October 4, 201 l ) 2. Critical/Sensitive Management a. Is this If located Areas - Identify any known Critical Act ordinances. project within an aquifer recharge area a wellhead protection area a sole source aquifer within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt If yes, please list exemption or Sensitive Areas as designated by local Growth 0 Yes ® No ■ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No from EPA approval? If no, date of EPA approval b. Is c. Will proposed Is this The the :4 project located in a Geologically Hazardous Area? this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? project area provides habitat to Bald Eagle and Great Blue Heron. improvements in the areas where paths and gravel roads already project within Bald Eagle nesting territories, winter concentration Yes 0 No ■ Yes ® No If yes, please describe ® Yes ❑ No Explain your answer Impacts to habitat will be minimized by locating the exist. areas or bald eagle communal roosts? Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued d. Are wetlands present within the project area? ® Yes ❑ No 1f Yes, estimated area of impact in acre(s): 0.9 Please attach a copy of the proposed mitigation plan. 3. cultural Resources/Historic Structures - Identify any historic, archaeological, or cultural resources present within the project's area of potential effects. Does the project fit into any of the exempt types of projects listed in Appendix C of the ECS Guidebook 0 Yes ® No If Yes, note exemption below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence 9/15/11 Date of Tribal consultation(s) (if applicable) fl/ 14/1 I Adverse affects on cultural/historic resources? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 M0A 4. Floodpiaine and Floodways Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? 1E1 Yes Q No If yes, is the project located in a 100-year floedway? ® Yes •❑ No Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? ® Yes 0 No If Yes, describe impacts. The fMndplains attic Green River and the Black River art located adjacent to the trail alignment from Station 1+00 at the connection to the Green River Trail to Station 14 + 86 near Monster Road. The proposed design provides on -site compensatory storage through a combination of cut and till in the tinodplain and additional excavation adjacent to the existing trail. The project will provide a net cut of 38 cubic yards below the Iloodplain elevation. See the attached memo tan Floodploin tmpuct Analysis tinted October 2011. 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste - identify potential sources and type. Does this project require excavation below the existing ground surface? ® Yes Q No Is this site located in an undeveloped area (i_e., no buildings, parking or storage areas, and agriculture (other than grazing), based on historical research? U Yes No Is this project located within a one -mile radius of a site pifjj p a Contedd or Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) maintained by Department of Ecology? g Yes U No Is this project located within a 1/2-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology Databases? ® Yes 0 No If yes, check the appropriate box(es) below. 1E1 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) ® Underground Storage Tank (UST) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? ® Yes ❑ No If so identify any properties not identified in the database search that may affect the project (name, address and property use). Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated September _, 2012. Based on the information above and project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to generate contaminated soils and/or groundwater? 0 Yes ® No Please explain: No reposed release site wan edjamxtt to ths mint corridor in the regulatory agency database search. Doe to distance of regulated sites from Um project mundor, tack of regulated USTI and suspected a confirm spills or releases, end minimal amount of ground excavation, the risk of encountering contamination is law. See the attached Hazardous Materials Dtsopltne Raped dated September 2012. If you responded yes to any of the above questions contact your Region LPE for assistance before continuing with this • Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued 6. Nolse Does this project involve constructing a new roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Does this project increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? ❑ Yes ® No Is there change in the topography? ❑ Yes ® No Are auxiliary lanes extending 1-1/2 miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? ['Yes ® No If you answered yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. j 7. Parka, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges, Historic Properties, Wild and Scenic Rivers/Scenic Byways, or 4 (f)l6 (f). a. Please Identify any 4(f) properties within the project limits and areas of Impacts. The project would use portions of two Section 4(t) properties, the Black River Riparian Forest and Fort Dent Park. Please see the attached Lake to Sound Segment A Section 40) Evaluation. b. Please Identify any 6(f) properties within the project limits and areas of impact. None c. Please list wild scenic rivers and scenic byways. None 8. Resource Lands - Identify any of the following resource lands within 300 feet of the project limits and those otherwise impacted by the project. a. Agricultural Lands ❑ Yes ® No If yes, please describe all impacts. Not applicable. If present, is resource considered to be prime and unique farmland? Q Yes ❑ No If Yes, date of approval from Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) b. Forest/Timber ® Yes 0 No If yes, please describe all impacts. The project is located adjacent to the Black River Riparum Forest, a relatively undisturbed riparian hardwood forest. Approximately 0.9 acres of riparian -wetland area will he cleared, however this area is largely tree from trees and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in substantial reduction in plant cover in the 88-acre study area c. Mineral Q Yes 531 No If yes, please describe all impacts. Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued 9. Rivers, Streams (Continuous, Intermittent), or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Fisheries WA Stream No. Ecology 303d Report No. (if known) Reason for 303d listing Fecal coli form Date of Report l / I /08 Waterbody common name Black River and the Green River b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Green and Black Rivers are both in WRIA 9. The project will create non -motorized improvements on the east side of the existing Monster Road Bridge over the Black River (WRIA 09.0004). c. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. & Name 9 Duwamish-Green 10. Tribal Lands - Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, trust and fee lands. None. 11. Visual Quality Will the project impact roadside classification or visual aspects such as aesthetics, light, glare or night sky. ■ Yes ►1:4 No if Yes, please identify the impacts. 12. Water QualitylStorm Water Has NPOES municipal general permit been issued for this WRIA? is Yes ■ No Amount of existing impervious surface within project limits: 54.450 square feet (1.25 acres) Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of project: 36.344 square feet (0.83 acre) Will this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSOOTs HRM, DOE's western or eastern Washington stormwater manuals, or a local agency equivalent manual? 21 Yes 0 No If no, explain proposed water quality/quantity treatmentfor new and any existing impervious surface associated with proposed project. The trail is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak Clow of equal to or more than 0,1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The trail is considered a non -pollutant generating surface. Part 4 Environmental Considerations - Continued 13. Commitments a. Environmental Commitments • Describe existing environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project - If any. None. b. Long -Term Maintenance Commitments • Identify the agency and/or department responsible for implementing maintenance commitments associated with this project. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-term maintenance o f [' '` 0 7'�ta""t"°w" '`1"•�'� a^^--_ this trail. .42. 14. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exemptions, as noted in Appendix F of the ECS Guidebook ® Yes 0 No If Yes, Please note exemption and appropriate justification in the space below. Findings should be confirmed using at least two information sources. Refer to ESC Guidebook for more information. Exemption 7: Installation of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths and facilties within the existing right of way limits. If no, are minority and/or low income populations located within the limits of the project's potential impacts? [] Yes ❑ No If no, attach appropriate data to support finding. If yes, describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat within the project's action area? El Yes 0 No Please attach species listings. Affected ESA Listed Species Spotted Owl management areas (CSAs, MOCAs, designated critical habitat, and/or potentially suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat? 2. Will any construction work occur within 0.5 miles of any of the following: ❑Yes ElNo 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock drilling, or rock scaling activities within 1 mile of any of the following? ❑ Yes ® No Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat and/or potentially suitable habitat? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No Westem Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? ❑ Yes ® No Cl Yes ® No Is the project within 0.5 miles of marine waters? If yes explain potential effects on Killer Whales and Steller's Sea Lion, and on Marbled Murretet Foraging areas. ❑ Yes 181 No ❑ Yes ® No r-1 vae rim ru.. 1 1 Vac ri Ne Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations - Continued Gray Wolf potentially suitable habitat? ❑ Yes =' No 0 Yes Ci11 No Canada Lynx habitat ❑ Yes ® No • Yes ® No Columbia White-tailed Deer potentially suitable habitat? ❑ Yes 18I No • Yes ® No Woodland Caribou habitat? ■ Yes - No • Yes 1E1 No A mature coniferous or mixed fixed forest stand? ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes Q No 4. Will the project Involve any In -water work? 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent either supports or drains to a listed fish supporting waterbody? 6. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetland, pond, or lake that any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. Does the action have the potential to directly or indirectly impact designated critical salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated.stormwater runoff or utilize wafer supports or drains into a listed fish -supporting waterbody, wetland, or waterbody? 9. Will construction work occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes, go to 9a. 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve clearing, filling, or modifications of vegetation or tree cutting? 10. Are there any Federal listed, threatened or endangered plant species located limits? If yes, please attach a list of plant species within the action area. Q Yes waterbody that .4 Yes • No is connected to 181 Yes ■ No habitat for ® Yes ❑ No from a waterbody that ■ Yes 121 No ,4 Yes ❑ No grading, ® Yes ❑ No within the project ❑ Yes El No Determination If each of the questions in the preceding section resulted in a "no" response or if any adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect" determination, then cannot be used for ESA Section 7 compliance (i.e., adequate justification cannot anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is required. ...r'' NOAA Fisheries USFWS ® No Effect 1" / I of the questions were checked "yes", but check 'No effect" below. If this checklist be provided or a "may affect" determination is Essential Fish Habitat Determination: ®No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect. Date of NOAA Concurrence / ❑ NLTAA Date of Concurrence 0 LTAA Date BO Issued Analysis for No Effects Determination - If there are any "yes" answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis is required. Please attach additional sheets if needed. Please see the attached No Effects Letter dated October 24, 2011 for an analysis of effects. The proposed project will have no effect on bull trout, Chinook salmon or Puget Sound steelhead because: The project will not result in additional pollutant generating impervious surface within the action area; there will be no alteration of peak flows or base flows in the project area; and there will be no in -water or over -water work and appropriate Best Management Practices will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and thechance of sediments entering the action area waterbodies. Temporary Erosion Sediment Control and Spill Prevention Control Plans will be prepared and implemented. Part 6 FHWA Comments LUA15-000257 Segment A, Lake to Sound, Slopes 41;;;;, Mack P er ie EXHIBIT 19 Elfi • ti4 J.. • 550 =-�R€panetrf crest - 'rail sassier Rd SW. • — -- Q�f S Notes None O 128 0 64 128 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere Legend City and County Boundary I Other ElCity of Renton Addresses Parcels ❑ 1st Floor (� 1st Floor 2nd Floor (� 1st Floor nthar Rrrilrlinns >25% 8 <=40% (Sensitive) 3 >40% 8 <=90% (Protected) 121 >90% (Protected) Environment Designations CEI EJ 0 I 1 .lurisriirtinnn Natural Shoreline High Intensity Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy city of nn br Information Technology'-GIS RentonMapSupportt Rentonwa.gov This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may riot be accurate. current. or otherwise reliable EXHIBIT 20 I I i i i i i i s� I 8 b 8 8 8 W rc A co to lc o c 0 ._c « EXHIBIT 21 MS any sayaNi spfingbrook c 'eek 0 CC al OC T:1 .2 tTi - 0 cc .... ".%(ci0 C/) (/) .Y fa, te- 0 (I3 E ..y Ls) 03 z • 0_ w 0 \Y Cb ..e, (t) 61, ›. 0 / 0 0 X Ci (^) Z (.9 (5) 17,s, 11_ Z 0 0 Z Lu CC u- 0 § 1— , nsj e 5 keo \n- o s: King County, City of Renton, VVDFW 2014. 4a E 1 It Legend: wasmis Proposed Trail Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A EXHIBIT 22 oaa o�y�ar � City of Tukwila Lake to Sound Trail— Segment A Green River Tr Ely ain6ij aag euijya;eye 125' B_, u iter z a Er a m fS Wetland Buffer Permanent Impact WetlandlStream Buffer Permanent Impact Stream Buffer Permanent Impact / / s� ,t / / / / / / I° • Layne ,00! 125' Buffer t p aJn6! aas auijgo eyj —_r / 1 /for / a iK. a4 / 1' 41. WO i/+a7 4, ; it;0 4 .. _ Jajj m a m N 1 8 E 72 a 3 3 a E E E 0) U L ,OOL 9-17 em5i j eag aui14o;eW x d E m Stream Buffer Temporary Impact 1 Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A WellandlStream Buffer Temporary Impact U. u w a 3 I ea..52ulitiopyl • i i a 3 JaJN9.00 x 0 4 a EE a E t- m 9 m E N ye WoUand/Stream Buffor E E 4, m E a E a 2 a E a m m 2 2 m c4 19. EXHIBIT 23 and Cover CO as Ca ma EXHIBIT 24 y w O. 'a d C W Q L O. 1- 0 0 O N L iri C w a) Maine P.�c. e K y f \nke`Jtp co 1-s pxurgi3OZJCIV 4 LX9-1-410-811C-1. !A \ SOOadelli\SID\S0AS66\1SZ1 480-4ZSL-4SS\o0'u1N-LZSL\Sluai!0\Slaa!OJd\OSd4fl 41ed c co co ID m c N_ w City Boundary Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A Black River Riparian Forest In .7 If) < < < 0 0 0 TDA la -Tukwila TDA lb -Renton 90 EXHIBIT 25 4i, LUA15-000257 Floodplain 5 133n \� # CO 1 1r 1 yS 1 1 Notes None 0 1,023 0 512 1,023Feet WGS_1984_Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere Legend City and County Boundary 1 Other City of Renton Floodway Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood) Streams (Classified) — 1 — 2 — 3 City of one Finance & IT Division Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 6/10/2015 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION EXHIBIT 26 253-876-3116 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorenser1, ,..11viivra.vvj Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Hi Karen, For the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A (Renton LUA15-000257) project, I am providing King County's responses to the four comments you provided in the May 13 email below. Please let me know if you have further comments on these responses by December 28, 2015. Thank you. 1. Comment: The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (see page 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/librarv/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? #1 Response: KC remains committed to the restoration of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. A portion of the trail project is in the vicinity of the salmon habitat restoration project LG-18 but does not conflict with it. The trail design includes replacement of trees removed during construction. Replacement trees will be planted in the 50 foot wide riparian buffer on publicly -owned property along the bank of the Black River it the project vicinity. In addition existing plantings from the 2005 volunteer effort will be protected during construction. 2. Comment: Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoi causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in th Green River that are contributing to pre -spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. #2 Response: The trail has been sited to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. Where tree removal are required great effort has been taken to have these be as far away from the river as feasible. Trees removed by the project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (requested below in question #4) or as directed by local permitting requirements whichever is greater. 3. Comment: Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. #3 Response: The project has committed to replanting trees in the riparian buffer and revegetating areas disturbed by construction. There are no plans for placing wood debris in the river as mitigation for this project because it already meets the overall criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. 4. Comment: Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Grec River and the Black River. #4 Response: We have determined that there is adequate space and we will accommodate this request. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Parametrixu- ENGINEERING . PLANNING • ENt 411 108th AVENUE NE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, \VA 98004-5571 T. 425. 458. 6200 F. 425. 458. 6363 ��traparamnrth.rnm October 24, 2011 PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) EXHIBIT 27 Entire Document Available Upon Request Jason Rich King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements — Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King County is proposing to develop a 1.1-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non -motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non -motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non - motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal -aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA -listed species could occur within the action area: • Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) • Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) EXHIBIT 28 Entire Document Available Upon Request ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division PO Box 47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 EXHIBIT 2/ Kris Sorensen From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A- LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 1 DEMOLRION N r i o EXHIBIT 30 a s Z g� 8. g g a O W 1 r U m H NZ a I R O a iW I _ 1 E re 0 .z99 \°I r air • 8' R TR.iL TO NACRES AVE SW 1111'a .1 Gv< <, T �...o .. �� :� �,,. ,"1,..., x ,�.,� ..3- tat _.5 , -Ar,-:KA. V3nia Bona a. a aW y4e3/4► SS z 0 co b b z 0 WA z QO kF to I- 9z N z TKO WU > CC 0 e o H BRIDGE PLAN AND ELEVATION a \e•a\:aatyt net\r ,mo t op -Goose TAB 50=1-' f c ,f u 2 �i O c hH fpi.i ,mz RS EXHIBIT 31 { 411 i,4,41,41,41,,414,41,41' 1 4 d, i < 1 4 4 4 1. !/ IS t, gTA oai 111111111111111111111111 119 • Appendix E Mitigation Plans L.,..sI 'Am \ 52l 1.E+\05.-ixi-0e..aSl 0,5,02H9 ,ue Nw. 1121,0C1a! 0.0171, .wi IS 2015 i1 M:1 ey <ia 1 aF 5 NVld NOIIV IiIW $I 6ff la COY OF 11INAILAI . CITY 0F1 r RENTON PAL 1$ II 'IL r l RN" OVERP/55 ,II P/L UNION PACIFIC OVERP CRY OF CITY OF IRENTON gg O G G 0 g gg 9 4 r 99 p AA 0 � g{ $ " >1 ix Qi g R€ 0,m, re o.m u.ray..y.�.�c...o�u�+..r.�»•-�.r oe.,m,P.s..u..vw. .v:. xnmc n... name er on.µ o.rt Muncer..M 1e. 10151 HID Pt B ga ''f NV1d NOIIVOIIIW e4 Z Oa o Om om rn o� ZU) G H � C n y 0r Z / /t a co / i 1 F. d � y I I P1 g OO® 0 Z k 4 C E RA � shi 1g e i.§ irl ig RI ad i I :'• ii illiii -9 A Rey aNI An a s,gel 0 Y /1 0 6 a e: ! f34 U.wl. wl PAN v V50N,ITNO. nl,(lSlI_W a.\55.AM!V-OO. tisNfSW,SCW0(03 v AV.* mONSOA. WINN N ;kW OAT ANN.N , +wu is 0015 i1 Es el 0 D SA NVId NO11V011101 MATCHLINE SEE NOLL0f1N1SNO3 • • v.:-.�x.v..-��:.-o.,.an.o..�„mv�o. 7. 3E C q his NVId N011VDI1IW A nF z� Oo -i ae o nl om < m oU) z N W Or z 40\4'k 3 Btl /4' l N 11 ��li 1 1N :i ;14 4 Reni! :S Od: !El 744 u100 ws n.rx u ‘.1.50v,...m0,.11 usns+s...croov^•... .vm 112000.N. \ P.0IM n w.c.w. 0, ..«««.- — IS_ .aL D SlIV130 ONU.NVld NOLLV9IIIW 11 A AiA€Pr I as s assasz 1 � sg 1 1i1a "q' 1 OOYNONBNOWBQUIY qi Ij' D E i i 400 I i p p P f i i 0 i- p ` S L yS W¢' 4-Qx.: Qet, f _ F 3 1 e s^ E E E o 5 � EEEEEE r• 1.9 55 " �g2 %.1,0=TREE rowx ogA ' € r I F2J agN a �' •g 9 €a as sa. 1 11 v., nc ..m o vnv...... u zrmx'O-v\ rtmnn et v.t.✓ cot T'044 av .a :m> cw 02 D n a S31ON NOI1V011IW O O1 � o o▪ m m o� Z Ue UI C - CO C3 n0 1- _1 y z Z !I 9 41g4 5.41:141 PH 1V1 :II! :410 !. 1 t , g" a:q{RpqJ�� o gW0 /1k • 1lsAsi,W gA A I1. iP;i zili1 " i m li tqgq G c 1' c I 'd Jgy* :;11 011 181 /; 1 1itl! / ! ! 1 gii i ei i s ; a R ei: i 1 l, blo rr l. a k a € - I `! R d $ � � R a11 X ! :11 1 gq1 R 1 ;1i 05 1 HOMO: rtl a 111 12; 111 11411 Hai !Wei !I g' 5' IF0411 11g Ti lAq4 Id gn yy e0 00,4 PO! glFh I V !g 1 !i illS ; ! ; ��$a R 1 1 a> T tt EXHIBIT 32 Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A -Line Station 1+00) Looking west (near A -Line Station 3+00) Looking west (near A -Line Station 5+50) Looking west (near A -Line Station 6+00) Looking east at railroad crossings (near A -Line Station 6+25) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A -Line Station 8+25) Looking west (near A -Line Station 11+00) Looking east at Monster Road driveway (near A -Line Station 13+50) Looking north at Monster Road (near A -Line Station 14+00) Looking northwest atMonster Road (near A,UneStation 14+SO/[-UneStation 2O1+7S) -.t ~` Looking north atMonster Road (near A,Une15+OO/[-UnpStation 2O2+IO) � J u Looking northwest atMonster Road (near A'UneStation 16+ZO/C'UneStation JOZ+SO) Looking north at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River near A -Line 16+00/ C-Line Station 202+50) • • • • "'„ , Looking south at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River (near A -Line 17+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east at Monster Road near B-Line Station 102+50) Looking west (near B-Line Station 105+00) Looking east (near B-Line Station 105+00) Looking west (near B-Line Station 121+00) Location of proposed box culvert, looking west (near B-Line Station 126+00) Project End, looking north (B-Line Station 143+17) EXHIBIT 33 Kris Sorensen From: Kris Sorensen Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:30 AM To: Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Cc: jason.rich@kingcounty.gov; Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov Subject: Response to Comments; RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: 6. L2ST Seg A Proj Narritive-Permit Descr & Justif.pdf; ESA NE documentation L2SA to Renton.pdf; L2S Seg A_Landscape Plan.pdf Karen, Thank you for the follow-up comments. I am providing responses below. Also, I have attached an updated study for the Endangered Species Act No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail "Segment A" pedestrian bridge submitted in December. Appendix A is the original No -Effects Determination for the full trail segment. Below are responses to your comments, with response 41 focused on the WRIA 9 LG-18 and LG-17 plans and response tt2 focused on no net loss: 41: The LG-17 project is not in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project under review. LG-17 is located roughly Y2 mile away. For LG-13, the marsh area that is to be restored is outside of the trail project area and the 50-foot wide shoreline riparian buffer is within the proposed project area. Multiple trail route alternatives were considered for this segment of the regional trail. The Segment A route was designed to have the least impact on the shorelines, mature trees, the existing sports complex, and railroad bridges in this area near the Black River and confluence with the Green River. The subject project will plant 21,330 square feet of the LG-13 riparian buffer area between the Black River shoreline and trail (see "BVCI" on the attached 'Landscape Plan'). The County is open to discussing placing a split rail fence adjacent the trail where the trail is close to the LG-18 project in consideration of increased use of the area by people and dogs. Shoreline permits are required for this project and further consideration of the comment can be considered at that time. Carol Lurch is the City of Tukwila staff contact that would likely review the Shoreline Permits in that jurisdiction (email contact is Carol.Lumbr�Tukwila\NA.gov). 12: The overall project has been reviewed for no net loss of riparian functions. The applicant has submitted multiple biological assessments that detail project impacts and mitigation. Trees are being replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio, in part, to account for the temporal loss of mature trees. I am attaching to this email the ,ubmitt(-2d Permit Narrative and Justification, where page 2 11 discusses the No Net Loss requirement for all development within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. I believe the studies listed in the no net loss umnrary were sent to you as part of the Notice of Application for the project (Critical Areas Study, Stream Q..eport, Vegetation and Wildlife Report, Floodpldin Study) and I can provide them as needed. I will follow up thr mail with the now Biological Assessment of the pedestrian bridge from August 2015 as it Is a larger file size so yt•a +I:,o have this study. lihank you For your nrnrnents. I ns ..oren'sen 1;snciate Planner, PI rnnlr ., r)ivr;ion Department of Community r_Lononlic Devi?lopinent City of Renton ksorensen@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application- Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 0 En m moles !es aull4_leW EXHIBIT 34 • FEMA Boundaries from 1995 FIRM. rl m 9 T 111333pLLL I I J_ E. 1 d i♦ i�� SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT 3$ Projecti`G-18:� Black River Marsh atRMM11.0 (Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile 11.0, right bank. The project would remove about 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River at the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks. This small area would then be planted with appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large stumps with root wads would be placed to provide cover. A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created along the banks of the Black River from the Black. River Pump Station to the confluence. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Opportunities and Constraints • The site has significant infrastructure that will make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive plant species now dominate the site. • In 2005, volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the south bank of the Black River just west of the Black River Pump Station. Black River confluence with the Green/Duwamish. Black River is to right. Railroad bridges are visible in the distance. February2005 photo. LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (All-2) • Preventing new bank armoring and removing existing armoring (AII-6) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) C3D Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off - channel habitats and/or placement of large woody debris along banklines • Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Page 7-75 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan —August 2005 t Project LG-17: Levee Setback Between RM 11.7 and 114 (Right Bank) Lower Green River looking downstream at river mile 11.7. To right is Fort Dent Park showing levee and possible bank set back area. February2005 photo. LINKAGES ® Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (AII-1) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) Cif? Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migration • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute loss of slow water areas by placement of large woody debris along banklines Project Description Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints • Permission must be obtained by the City of Tukwila, and implementers will need to work with the company that manages the soccer complex on this parcel to design this project in a way that minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may also present challenges for implementation. Page 7-74 rraon/r)uwnmich and central Puaet Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan—Auaust 2005 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA15-000257 Application Date: April 17, 2015 Name: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PLAN - Planning Review - Land Use Engineering Review Comments Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. EXHIBIT 36 Version 1 Contact:Vicki1425-430-7291I vgrover@rentonwa.gov Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. ATechnical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is withiin 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SW PPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please subrnit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen [ 425-430-6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. — J „ act) Q '5 v Les ib w >O > uiii 2 l �O Er)CO it" I.c M C) Q CC C CC O W a) cc Fe' a J CD PROPOSED (Part of proposed Lake to Sound Regional Trail) Monster Road SW to Naches Avenue SW 0.9 mile this segment, 3.1 miles total trail CO (13 - ro 0 v +' U Cr) ra a -p 03 c Oa! LL N (13 (tIC Q. N C 1 riot I a. t OZ� 001 Separated multi -use trail, paved 1 a a a a a a 1 r Bicyclists and pedestrians al y L >tz w ,C LPL U J ,: 41 C co, > 63 E y rya = V N n. CO m ra? • m =iii - y 444 N y L/1 0 ra as a! MS y U O _ O O $-. .1...CCrua 'ro C Li. >, LI) N N m L- = L%1 0 _ i '� S "a C —.1L' = O ra 3p= >m2 o a; L. C U v N '" �1 Z rya 0 0 Z Li_ y O J al `- rd Q c L1J sn G) ULCA --17 J >- 1 Q •L >-� 2 QU Si Possible permitting challenges Project Status Project Length Existing Condition te, o a O Q Q) O y d O Connections C C ro O co C L fo %3 +' ,;-) O ov V (75 CU, (75 ICAL CROSS-SECTION(s) PREFERRED ► Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan N 0 p O a LJJ . O p a' a. 0 o t. r0 Q. LL 0.2 mile this segment, 3.1 miles total trail Rough path under Union Pacific railroad trestle 1 1 1 1 1 i - 13 a) o_ ro of z E 11 'O �. a j(0 a0. I N 0 Bicyclists and pedestrians v c -,_ E O = u > a �-d am m� °�,' ca a. u +., vi N }, vi p r0 ro w— v a,o �c�ca �v� �� c Q C t a �uc p ° >,p CO O p ,.. 4-,, u. a) ro v Z cw�vv �� 34-0 aJ t- • C C C t0 v_ a) .c C 0 C N pap .3 C t =1 O aJ > Y� Ola-' C O = • Oc 'm t%1 1- c i.. -O ,► . a:( r0 aJ 3� a �I-w OO a L. Z a) O ►� 0ZU- • L. OJ O++ _ IT!vNi ro < c .0 u' 0 0 � u J 3Y �c'U c3 oc = Q Q' a cc aU O • 0 x 5. 1-a.ocaF--vnm U+' D asVi Z134— -a > L � O co asU v, c a) c cc u -J g c O m v > 62 ° c N• Lrs Project Status Project Length Existing Condition Connections - Fulfilling the vision of the state Shoreline Managemen. INTRODUCTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the Act) passed in 1971 and is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piece -meal development of our state's shorelines. Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation, private housing, commercial and industrial uses. Lake Washington from Coulon Park, Credit: City of Renton EXHIBIT 39 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT E' '4Z 4/ �ql e -Immunity - e Doc of all use of sh. 4a 4/n 'te their human utility ana . °s) -fe the Act relate both to `p the extremely valuable al. 94, resources of the state. The at. Srt accommodation of "all reasonab. priate uses" consistent with "protecting ag, dverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and consistent with "public rights of navigation. The planning policies of master programs (as distinguished from the development regulations) may be achieved by a number of means, only one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: the acquisition of lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other local governments, and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects, and incentive programs. There are over 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton's planning area are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The Act recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces and human conduct. Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition -Is of of Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of "fragile" shoreline, "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the Act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the Act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial development permit requirement of the Act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, PAGE 78 _c c^ U 7 O N u u as 76 N '> > n O L O o 73 U 7 L N a L a) N 3 N aJ 0 u C u O m � N O' N 7 u n (o ° w 0 o c co O. 4- m o 5 to +' S C c c0 . p u 0 c�uo c n u a)' CUC OA N 03 O u 0. C a ro vi u 0A: o c• E' O X E a' n O 4-, a) E N OL 4_ subdivision and because further GREEN RIVER a) L 4-, v R N n .0 (o 0 4- V) a1 ra U a) u •N L n u a 7 i0 O L -0 fi . ° v o n E a) L O E O y U N c0 U c co u c cu V) u a 0 4-4 (u0 0 a) U o .Q > —I 7 O O n-p t o L) ++ N a) a) -0 c rooc a o 0 N 0 OA A: •� L _a c0 N 'O 4-. 0 0 0 a0 0 a) in. N 3 7 CT ° O CO N a) c0 L (0 0 O 'O (n N L O a) N 0A `- -O -C::: "O V E O L ++ OA -O C C o° ° ,`L°, 3 3 ° aci L c N O 0 m in ba tno -wE : .,, f E 0 co .21 L > Na) n UV) C "O tso 6CLi LL 4- o O LLu�+C I LL:CC: ++tC0++�'O0O ° Ou cpuCnO. +.' N 'a+_ E O LaL'7oCCCO c3nLLvcuuofcE>c L ° 'o s O c o as vN1 E .,_Fa N "" U c0u la '-'1:"-:.4:_ co _ C u + a) u. ._ iha C A: a) 0 7 a) L O J E L a) CO >� •E O c a) N OU y coc0A C 2 O 0 i N° 'O On ? fo L1 Y aJ ".' c U .O (0 V1 +L4 a) U L 4-' co 7 a) n U O N L m 7° 0 +4 0 7 OA C a) u C a) m 3 u v a) 7 +� u O +, p +� o > v O L + u' n N °.0 ++ o L O 4-' C CU t0 as r°0o o aci �o +' ° o aLi +' (O,1 +-4 a v v E s a E m u N a L w CL cu N= aEi ° o c a Y N o L CO MI a n> o C a E o o vv 3 7 u > u +� v ,, N L s m E+ `) (�Lo a o o fl 3 E v°° `n rsi o bA N c a;vi kris o > p in C N 46 O n C O O O E L 7 f6 N (0 O L) +.' v- cui X v O L p v C 4 0 -O E O Y 9. C C '� a) v c c@ a .^ v a m < b4 E (o v O mm c v to• > ° a 0 v E c 0 3 3 ai c ;; acn YL) a. c 0 3 .y ai- 5 ar n a ° N N u" -, +' t O-0 VI 5 N v L N YO L° X 7 .L N co N > L L) Y N c �"'E c� Y V 4� 0 v) O0 0 U> = L p E N 7 V1 2 ° 7 a) Na1 (LU - U w !'1 4- ''� — 30 r (0 T N N -p +.' C' co ; Dv ; T 7 L 00) ° 'Lo ° �- a) c c C v co oA cw 4... o 3 v c ., _o v.,o c c C E ns a _cX ° 7 aJ (Lo .Y p E E v tn +" 2 (0 _CO c6 X N CU o c) N O U n ++ U of Q vTi O C 00 11 O U O ,N O Oci ++ n p_ C O O L) O a., O U L) ..0 e L X L U E L O O U L +' L L C a.' F- 3 F- aJ co v +.' Q . Q 4- u aJ F- cn .� co a N 0 Y N E J m 10 Ca L r4 it to ca aEE ur Springbrook B From SW 16th Street to the City Limits Springbrook C Lake to Sound Trail— Segment A River Buffer ~vmresKin .ouun . City ofRenton, paramemx vmSooT, Aerials xpress ^^' 0 i! Denis Law Mayor January 14, 2016 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: EXHIBIT 4 I Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segement A LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 11)55 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6593. For the Environmental Review Committee, Kris Sorensen Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal office US Army Corp. of Engineers DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V APPLICANT: King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7th Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: 4‘20 Gregg Zimmerministrator Public Works Dep ent Terry HigashiydFna, Administrato Community Services Department January 15, 2016 January 11, 2016 Date Hi* Date ar terson,inistrator Fire ergenc rvices C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V APPLICANT: King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7th Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Regional Trail — Segement A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No -Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. PLAN Planning Review Land Use Version 1 ) January 11, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Vicki Grover 1425 430 7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SWPPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen 1425 430 6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. D....n 3 ni • OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGEMENT A PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, 5-V LOCATION: BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST IN CITY OF RENTON AND FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT REQUESTS SEPA REVIEW, SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A SHORELINE VARIANCE, AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING INFORMAL 1.2-MILE TRAIL INTO A NONMOTORIZED MULTI -PURPOSE ROUTE AND INCLUDES A NEW 114 FT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE BLACK RIVER. THE PROJECT IS `SEGMENT A OF THE THE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, A CONTINUOUS 16-MILE-LONG REGIONAL CORRIDOR LINKING LAKE WASHINGTON TO PUGET SOUND. SEGMENT A TRAVELS THROUGH THE BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST FROM NACHES AVE SW IN CITY OF RENTON, CROSSING MONSTER RD SW, TO ARRIVE AT FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. _.__. __.-..�...�...�wwwwg. E. a,I"n19 ATIAAI • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME ,11 EXHIBIT 42 TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET City of Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Total number of trees over 6" diameters, or alder or cottonwood trees at (east 8" in diameter on project site 16,000 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dangerous2 0 trees Trees in proposed public streets 0 trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 0 trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 8,000 trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 8,000 trees 8,000 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained'', multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones 2,400 trees 5. List the number of 6" in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8" in diameter that you are proposings to retain4: 7,869 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) 0 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 0 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 0 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 0 trees 1 Measured at 4.5' above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. 1 Minimum Tree Density A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family dwellings in R-10 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination. Detached single-family development': Two (2) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. For example, a lot with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required to have four (4) significant trees or their equivalent in caliper inches (one or more trees with a combined diameter of 24"). This is determined with the following formula: Lot Area \5, 000 sq. f t. 2 = Minimum Number of Trees Multi -family development (attached dwellings): Four (4) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. 4 = Minimum Number of Trees Example Tree Density Table: Lot Lot size Min significant trees required New Trees Retained Trees Compliant 1 5,000 2 2 @ 2" caliper 0 Yes 2 10,000 4 0 1 tree (24 caliper inches) Yes 3 15,000 6 2 @ 2" caliper 1 Maple —15 caliper inches 1 Fir — 9 caliper inches. Yes ' Lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-10 and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite, however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits. 8 Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees. 2 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Renton Permits NOTES ON TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees The site traverses a site of about 80 acres. We did not do a tree survey over the entire site We estimate 200 trees per acre, based on the tree density in a mature Pacific Northwest Forest from the following. publications: Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest, S.S. Niemiec, G.R. Ahrens, S. Willits, and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Research Contribution 8. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory http://owic.oregonstate.edu/red-aider-ainus-rubra Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas -fir Curtis, Robert 0.; Clendenen, Gary W.; Reukema, Donald L.; DeMars, Donald J.:L982. Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas - fir. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-135. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 182 p. http://www.fs.fed.ustpnw/publications/pnw gtr135/pnw gtr135a.�df Portions of the site have been cleared with limited tree cover, however this estimate is likely to be relatively accurate. 2. The deduction for 60 Critical Areas includes both wetlands and buffers. Wetlands have not been fully delineated, so this is a rough estimate. It is intended to be conservative. If wetlands and buffers are a greater percent of the sit, the number of trees required to be retained would be lower. 4. Trees that must be retained: The estimate of 2,400 was based on the maximum multiplier of .3. This is the tree count for the entire site outside Critical Areas, not just the portion within or near the trail corridor. 5. Trees proposed to be retained are all trees, minus 151 designated for removal = 7849 which is 98 percent of the trees on the non -critical portion of the site. 9. Tree replacement is proposed for all trees removed. 4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RacErvEtalEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING ••;,U February 16, 2016 Community Development AGENDA COMMENCING AT 11:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL Cityof ;Y OIA '--t The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Regional Trail PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a 16-mile regional trail that links Lake Washington and Puget Sound. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width, is paved, and located in the inner 50% of the buffer area. The trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). The trail is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' Shoreline Overlay and associated wetland buffers. 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Portions of the trail corridor are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area with a net result of 135.5 cubic yards of soil removal within the flood area. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 2.26 acres of mitigation planting areas are proposed. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption by Washington State Department of Transportation. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: LAKE TO SOIJND REGIONAL TRAIL — SEGEMENT A PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V LOCATION: BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST IN CITY OF RENTON AND FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT REQUESTS SEPA REVIEW, SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A SHORELINE VARIANCE, AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING INFORMAL 1.2-MILE TRAIL INTO A NONMOTORIZED MULTI -PURPOSE ROUTE AND INCLUDES A NEW 114 FT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE BLACK RIVER. THE PROJECT IS "SEGMENT A" OF THE THE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, A CONTINUOUS 16-MILE-LONG REGIONAL CORRIDOR LINKING LAKE WASHINGTON TO PUGET SOUND. SEGMENT A TRAVELS THROUGH THE BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST FROM NACHES AVE SW IN CITY OF RENTON, CROSSING MONSTER RD SW, TO ARRIVE AT FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. f CITY OF TUKWILA ," ZONING CODE Department of Community Developmm ut 6300 5butheenter Boiggwird, Tukwila, WA 9818,e3°MrnUrity01:1 SHORELINE 1-.3evelopment Telephone: (206) 43 670 VARIANCE APPLICATION 4:.1gt1. Planner: Application -Complete Date: PlYiriNQWni _ Z.:1P511 FileNuloher: / Project File Nurnhir: Application Incomplete Date:• °flier Nunthers: L_/ZSZ —C-6/ NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: •Lake to Sound Segment A — L'iraY rekt, 6nv BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See 1.1.2 uf the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or. ifvaeara, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, aeceSs street,and nearest intersection. Sec 1.1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report, LIST ALL TAX LOT NIIIVIBER.,3 01;4 information may befound on your tax statement). Parcel number.232304,9901, 722950-0360, 232304-4)901, 722950-0359, 232304-9995 DEVELOPMENT COORMNATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/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 he sent. Name: .Ton Rich, King County Address: 201 South Jackson St., 7th FlOor, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 477-4582 FAx: .10G E-mail: jason.rich@kingcounty.gov Signature: Date:. 2-1 16 WdinstoreCity CoInalon\ircriArvisiOnsln Propr..,ZoningCodc-SItorclirh! Va-nct App.excx Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 2. VARIANCE This chapter addresses City of Tukwila Submittal Requirements fora Shoreline Variance. Please see Section 1.1 for the Application information. Attached is supporting documentation as follows: Appendix A — Application Checklists for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix B — Application Signature pages for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Variance Appendix C — SEPA Checklist Appendix D — Shoreline Site Plan and Cross Sections Appendix E — Civil Plans (including Landscape Plan — Sheets MP1 and MP6) Supporting environmental reports are provided separately. These include the CAR, Stream Discipline Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Technical Information Report for Drainage and Floodplain, and No Effect Letter. 2.1 Criteria for Shoreline Master Program Variance (TMC 18.44.130D) This project is requesting a variance from TMC 18.44.100(C)(1), which specifies a 14-foot wide trail with 2-foot shoulders. This project proposes to construct a trail that is 12-foot wide with 2-foot wide shoulders. The following section includes the review criteria for the Shoreline Master Program Variance (TMC 18.44.130D) followed by a justification narrative (narrative text in blue). A. Criteria for a variance for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland: The proposed Segment A trail will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and no wetlands will be permanently or temporarily affected as a result of this project. 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in TMC 18.44 preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The construction of a public trail is permitted in the Urban Conservancy Buffer per TMC 18.44.050; however, the trail size, as specified in 18.44.100 (C)(1) is incompatible with the 16-mile Lake to Sound Corridor, which calls for a 12-foot wide trail with 2-foot shoulders. This would result in incompatibility with the other multi -use portions of the regional trail system, and result in greater shoreline impacts than is necessary for a safe, functional trail. 2. The hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of TMC 18.44 and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity within the shoreline and zone in which the property is situated. No special property characteristic or SMP requirement prevent the construction of this trail in the manner of adjacent properties or other like -zoned properties in the shoreline jurisdiction. Rather, the City of Tukwila design standard for trail width (14-foot wide with 2-foot shoulders) is inconsistent with the proposed design of the planned Lake to Sound 16-mile regional trail network (12-foot wide with 2- March 2016 1554-1521-084 2-1 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County foot shoulders). As a King County -driven project with regional significance, the proposed trail is sited in multiple jurisdictions including the cities of Tukwila, Renton, SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and King County. To provide continuity between the multiple jurisdictions, King County selected a trail design that is compatible with King County's 2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 2012), the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO 2004), the WSDOT Design Manual, and best professional judgment based on what we have seen work in other locations. To change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface. 3. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. There are no inconsistencies with the proposed alignment of Segment A with the goals and policies contained within the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan. The majority of the proposed alignment of Segment A is located in a public recreation overlay as identified in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. It is compatible with several goals and policies as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan as described below: Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.1:Parks, recreation opportunities and open spaces that are close to home and/or work and that are interconnected by safe streets, off-street trails and public transportation. Goal 6.2: A Network of Green Spaces — Recreational amenities, historical sites, rivers, wetlands, creeks, and other natural resources that are connected to each other and neighboring networks of lands. This network defines Tukwila as a Northwest city, and includes visually significant bands of vegetation that contrast with the built environment. Policy 6.2.1: Non -motorized transportation links between network lands Shoreline Master Plan Please see Section 1.2.1 of this report for an understanding of the proposed trail's consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other shoreline properties in the area. The variance does not provide special privilege. It will result in a trail that is consistent with other connecting trail elements. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief This reduction in trail sizing is the minimum necessary to afford relief. This variance requests to construct a 12-foot trail in lieu of a 14-foot trail in keeping with the vision of the Lake to Sound 2-2 March 2016 1554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County Feasibility Study, the design of the portion of Segment A that extends into neighboring City of Renton, and the remaining, planned 16-mile multi -use segments of the Lake to Sound trail. As described previously, to change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. This project is highly compatible with the surrounding uses. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. The proposed trail is also consistent with the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. March 2016 1 554-1521-084 2-1 Teri Svedahl qL1(0-1)01q From: Stephanie Gardner Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:16 AM To: Teri Svedahl Subject: FW: Message from "RNP339592" Hi Teri, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Please charge as follows: GL: 301.98.594.760.49.00 PA: 91130101.1000.107 Thanks Teri! Original Message From: Stephanie Gardner Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:47 AM To: Teri Svedahl Subject: FW: Message from "RNP339592" Hi Teri, We'd like to cover the fees associated with this bill, how do you handle this between City departments? Thanks! Stephanie Stephanie Gardner, Parks and Recreation Analyst 112424 — 42nd Ave South I Tukwila, WA 98168 1206.767-2342 City of Tukwila Parks & Recreation I stephanie.gardner@tukwilawa.gov The city of opportunity, the community of choice. Original Message From: Rick Still Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: Jason Rich Cc: Stephanie Gardner Subject: FW: Message from "RNP339592" Yes, Thank you, Rick Original Message From: Rich, Jason [mailto:Jason.Rich@kingcounty.gov) Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:09 PM To: Rick Still Subject: FW: Message from "RNP339592" Can you pay this one? Jason Rich 0:206-477-4582 M:206-427-8576 Original Message From: Pa rksKingStreetCenterCopier@kingcounty.gov [mailto:ParksKingStreetCenterCopier@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:07 PM To: Rich, Jason Subject: Message from "RNP339592" This E-mail was sent from "RNP339592" (Aficio MP C6501). Scan Date: 07.19.2016 15:06:51 (-0700) Queries to: ParksKingStreetCenterCopier@kingcounty.gov City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director July 13, 2016 Jason Rich King County 201 S Jackson Street, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 INVOICE FOR HEARING EXAMINER FEES Explanation of fees: Hearing Examiner file review fees related to: City of Tukwila SHORELINE VARIANCE, L16-0017 Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Variance request to reduce trail width FEES OWING: Invoice(s) received from City of Seattle Hearing Examiner: HE review, Hearing, decision, materials Invoice # TW2016-03 July 8, 2016 HE travel, mileage July 8, 2016 $311.80 $29.18 aIance Owing $340.98 The City of Tukwila accepts Cash, Check, Visa/Mastercard Credit card payment is accepted over the phone. 206.431.3670 If paying by check please remit payment to: City of Tukwila Attn Teri 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100 Tukwila WA 98188 City of Seattle Office of Hearing Examiner P.O. Box 94729, Seattle WA, 98124-4729 P(206) 684-0521 F(206) 684-0536 Physical/ Delivery Address: 700 5th Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104 To: City of Tukwila Mayor's Office 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Pay to: Date: July 8, 2016 Tax ID: 91-6001275 Invoice #: TW2016-03 Customer ID: TW City of Seattle Office of Hearing Examiner P.O. 94729 Seattle, WA 98124-4729 Travel Rate/Fee Hourly Rate Mileage Payment Terms 20.00 per trip 115.00 per hour 54 cents per mile Net 30 Date Case# Service Description Hours Examiner Line Total L16-0017 Lake to Sound 6/3/2016 Review staff report and file 0.80 Watanabe Shoreline Variance $92.00 6/7/2016 L16-0017 Lake to Sound Hearin Shoreline Variance g 0.30 Watanabe $34.50 6/10/2016 L16-0017 Lake to Sound Prepare decision Shoreline Variance 1.50 Watanabe $172.50 Date Case # Out of Pocket Expenses Quanitiy Staff Line Total L16-0017 Lake to Sound 6/10/2016 Mailing of decision and original record Shoreline Variance 6/10/2016 L16-0017 Lake to Sound Postage - 1 flat Shoreline Variance Make all checks payable to -- City of Seattle 0.20 Ku $6.00 1.00 Ku $6.80 Service Total Out of Pocket Total Amount Due $299.00 12.80 $ 311.80 A BILLING TIME SHEET Hearing Examiner: WM-A' Case Name and Number: %'e 4 Sov‘--A DATE SERVICE DESCRIPTION TIME /// 1,cnu 14✓ n./( 4 rC t,ftr- 4tavD, qVik gr-A D, ,.. Cv 14 F ii-e,. ci s /,t .1 = 6 min, .2 = 12 min, .3 = 18 m, .4 = 24 min, .5 = 30 min, .6 = 36 m, .7 = 42 min, .8 = 48 min, .9 = 54 m Include: !' Mileage Travel Fee 0 Bridge Toll Ku, Tiffany From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: _'� 2: tor(` t pvel0p Rowland, Angela Friday, June 10, 2016 1:55 PM Ku, Tiffany Schy-Berg, Kathleen RE: Tukwila Cost of Mailing 6/10 Hi Tiffany the cost of your mail today was for your letters it was 2x 39.9 and the package was $6.80 From: Ku, Tiffany Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:38 AM To: Schy-Berg, Kathleen Cc: Rowland, Angela Subject: Tukwila Cost of Mailing 6/10 Please send me the cost of mailing for today, sending a flat to Tukwila. Thank you! Tiffany Ku Legal Assistant City of Seattle Office of Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104 Office: 206.615.1718 I Fax: 206.684.0536 I Tiffany.VKu@seattle.gov City of Seattle CO\Jrsl e Office of Hearing Examiner P.O. Box 94729, Seattle WA, 98124-4729 P(206) 684-0521 F(206) 584-0536 Physical/ Delivery Address: 700 5th Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104 To: City of Tukwila Mayor's Office 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Pay to: Date: July 8, 2016 Tax ID: 5752 Invoice #: TW2016-03AW Customer ID: TW Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner, Pro Tempore 7614 So. Mission Drive Seattle, WA 98178 Travel Rate/Fee Hourly Rate Mileage Payment Terms 20.00 per trip 115.00 per hour 54 cents per mile Net 30 Date Case# Service Description Hours Examiner Line Total Date Case # Out of Pocket Expenses Quanitiy Examiner Line Total 6/7/2016 L16-0017 Lake to Sound Travel Fee Shoreline Variance 1.00 Watanabe $20.00 6/7/16 L16-0017 Lake to Sound Mileage Shoreline Variance g 17.00 Watanabe Service Total Out of Pocket Total Amount Due Make all checks payable to -- Anne Watanabe $9.18 $0.00 29.18 $ 29.18 AGENCY LABELS ( ) City Clerk Office — Christy O' Flaherty PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS NEED TO GO TO CHRISTY ( ) US Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal HWY Admin ( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ( ) US Dept of HUD ( ) National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES Office of Archaeology ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ( ) Dept of Natural Resources ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) WA State Community Development ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office ( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 ( ) Dept of Social & Health Services Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically Office of Attorney General- ( ) Office of Hearing Examiner ( ) KC Boundary Review Board ( ) Fire District # 11 ( ) Fire District # 2 ( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation KC Assessor's Office ►4 KC Watershed Coordination WRIA 9 Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Health Department ( ) Port of Seattle ( ) KC Dev & Enviro Services-SEPA Info Center ( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources ( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque ( ) KC Public Library System ( ) Foster Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) Westfield Mall Library ( ) Tukwila School District ( ) Highline School District ( ) Seattle School District ( ) Renton School District ( ) Century Link ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Puget Sound Energy ( ) Highline Water District ( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ( ) Comcast ( ) BP Olympic Pipeline Section 5 UTILITIES ( ) Seattle Public Utilities ( ) Val-Vue Sewer District ( ) Water District # 20 ( ) Water District # 125 ( ) City of Renton Public Works ( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ( ) Waste Management ( ) Cascade Water Alliance ( ) Tukwila City Departments ( ) Public Works ( ) Fire ( ) Police ( ) Planning Parks & Rec ( City Clerk (PU ( ) Finance ( ) Building 7t i l ( ) Mayor IC HEARINGS/MEETINGS) Sectio i6 CITY AGENCIES ( ) Kent Planning Dept j`Renton Planning DeptleYT/N: credln� gele_41ni?'1� ( ) City of SeaTac (/ U�1 ( ) City of Burien ( ) City of Seattle ( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects ( ) Puget Sound Regional Council ( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce 00 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resources (k) Fisheries Program +• tn Wildlife Program • • Duwamish Indian Tribe pQ Tukwila Historical Society** Section 7 OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ( ) Sound Transit/SEPA fk) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * ( ) Washington Environmental Council ( ) People for Puget Sound * ( ) Futurewise * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ** send notices for all Tukwila projects which require public notice — via email to tukwilahistsocietvCaltukwilahistory.orq and rcwieserc comcast.net ( ) Seattle Times ( 1 South County Journal Section 8 MEDIA ( ) Highline Times ( 1 City of Tukwila Website Public Notice Mailings For Permits SEPA MAILINGS (comment period starts on date of mailing) Notice of Application mailed to: Department of Ecology (send checklist with Notice of Application), applicant, other agencies as necessary, property owners and tenants within 500 feet. It is also posted on site. KC Transit Division - SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand. Tribes - For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice of Application SEPA Determination mailed to Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section /1*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 at the time of SEPA determination: SEPA Determination Staff report 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 for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to applicant, property owners and residents within 500 feet of subject property, agencies with jurisdiction. Comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The Notice of Application for a 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. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) - Notice to DOE must be by return receipt requested) mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11). Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office State Attorney General *Applicant r IV -WOW 4v-',vc`Y2 *Indian Tribes • • *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the notice of decision and staff report, site plan and.the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: One complete packet should also be sent to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe if they commented on the project during comment period. Permit Data Sheet v/ Shoreline Substantial Development Decision (Signed by Director) ✓ Findings (staff report or memo) V Shoreline Permit ApplicationrojecForm (filled out by applicant) rom ) b y / gar* /Draw ni gs/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Wr G� �.�,.; - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements - Cross -sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan Vicinity map SEPA determination (Signed by Director) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant' Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of flictrihi itinn fnntira \Arac mailarll �/ Teri Svedahl From: Teri Svedahl Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56 AM To: 'tukwilahistsociety@tukwilahistory.org' Subject: Shoreline Substantial Development Attachments: L16-0017_Site_Plan.pdf; L16-0017_SSD.pdf; L16-0017_SSDV.pdf Attached is information regarding a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. If you have any questions, please direct them to the project planner, Moira Bradshaw at Moira.Bradshaw (u fukwilaWa.gov Kindest regards, Teri Svedahl Land Use and Sign application intake hours are: M — F, 8:30 — 12:00 & 1:00 — 4:00 Teri Svedahl /Administrative Support Technician City of Tukwila I Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Ste 100 I Tukwila WA 98188 Teri. SvedahI Tukwila WA.gov CARI 11a-:-3WIr:.a1 ESPONS.VE The City of opportunity, the community of choice. ** NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This email account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.** Teri Svedahl From: Teri Svedahl Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:55 AM To: bikenstein@q.com Subject: Shoreline Substantial Development Attachments: L16-0017_Site_Plan.pdf; L16-0017_SSD.pdf; L16-0017_SSDV.pdf Attached is information regarding a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. If you have any questions, please direct them to the project planner, Moira Bradshaw at 1loira.Bradshaw(c "l ukw.ila\XJa.gov Kindest regards, Teri Svedahl Land Use and Sign application intake hours are: M — F, 8:30 — 12:00 & 1:00 — 4:00 Teri Svedahl /Administrative Support Technician City of Tukwila I Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Ste 100 I Tukwila WA 98188 Teri. SvedahlTukwila WA.gov R[SPONSwr€ The City of opportunity, the community of choice. ** NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.** C,g.Ver47-r" s 5,16 Q ,6 ea( n/0.?? /e��/3� �;( 7 W , a ii s / oQ )v c16L- .5 57 /1 O aeN11/U' 6 /77 %sue s �, ` ATl-ce). �A( , �s �a k Room bd Ki/gW hi keyi r/ 3 J,G�470lP Lo!9-147rurl 61(777nti 6.5oziro�' ( LRnitS f�/52--4/� p��J2 eit+t of gamut" a Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Application X Notice of Decision Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit x Shoreline substantial development/variance Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this C1 day of k 20 (�,.? Project Name: Lake to Sound Trail Project Number: PL16-0014 Associated File Number (s): L16-0016, L16-0017 Mailing requested by: 447-) Mailer's signature: tle Oue� '�/r,G Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: (local government) City of Tukwila Transmittal Date: Type of Permit: (Indicate all that apply) Substantial Development Conditional Use Variance Revision Other Applicant Information: Name: Address: Jason Rich, King County DNR Local permit no. L16-0016; L16- 0017 State permit no. To: (appropriate Ecology office) David Pater Receipt Date: (provided by Ecology) Local Government Decislion: ❑ Approval ® Conditional Approval ❑ Denial Applicant's Representative: (If primary contact) Name: Address: King Street Center; 201 S Jackson St. Rm. Phone(s): 700; Seattle 98104-3855 Phone(s): 206 477 4582 Is the applicant the property owner? ❑ Yes ® No Location of the Property: (Section, township, and range to the nearest %, 1/a section or latitude and longitude, and a street address where available.) 14800 Starfire Way, Tukwila, WA 98188; Tax parcel ID #s 2323049001; 2323049005; 2323049003;7229500360;7229500350; Nea3-.23 4_ Water Body Name: Green and Black rivers Shoreline of State Significance: ® Yes El No Environment Designation: Urban conservancy Project Description: (Summary of the intended use or project purpose) King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW in the City of Renton, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges (BNSF and Union Pacific) to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park in the City of Tukwila. Approximately 12 % of this segment or -750 feet is in the City of Tukwila. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides nonmotorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. In addition to the overall request for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct the trail in the shoreline, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Shoreline Overlay District standard of an 18 foot wide trail. The proposed project is requesting a 16 foot wide trail/cross section. Notice of Application Date: April 11, 2016 Final Decision Date: July 27, 2016 By: (Local government primary contact on this application) Moira Carr Bradshaw Phone: 206 431-3651 N - C 00 CN ,I . W Ct --\„ c. N JJ I-+ 5-- NAME s s g-' (p i_ p v; o (n '-rf v^l -s. Iv ADDRESS l!\ . WA *16g li i Go N -z. CITY, STATE, ZIP 7-p -3 W N s --1 PHONE V. ------ V 2. i PROJECT NAME crq c C x g TUT( � '7° Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director co ` DATE: NOTIFICATION: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER May 25, 2016 The Notice of Application and Public Hearing was mailed to the applicant; surrounding property owners and tenants; and agencies with jurisdiction on April 8, 2016 and posted on the site on April 7, 2016. FILE NUMBER: Project file: PL16-0014; Land Use file: L16-0017 ASSOCIATED FILES: L16-0016, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit APPLICANT: Jason Rich, for King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources REQUEST: LOCATION: SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: To reduce the width of the pedestrian trail from that adopted in Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program from 18 feet to 16 feet - 12 foot paved width with 2 foot soft shoulders on both sides. The City of Tukwila staff makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who after holding a public hearing makes a recommendation to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology issues a final decision on the shoreline variance request. At the north end of Fort Dent Park (also known as the Starfire Sports Complex) from Tukwila's eastern city limit along the east edge of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way to the Green River Trail. The project site is along the south bank of the Black River and the east bank of the Green River. Tax Parcel numbers: 232304-9001, 722950-0360, 722950-0350, 232304-9005, 722950- 0340; 232304-9003 Urban Conservancy Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING DISTRICT: Low Density Residential and Heavy Industrial SEPA DETERMINATION: The City of Renton acted as SEPA lead agency and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued on January 11, 2016 by the City of Renton. STAFF CONTACT: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plan Sheets 2. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe E-mail dated Mayll, 2016 3. City of Renton Letter dated May 10, 2016 4. City of Renton SEPA Documents -SEPA Staff Report and SEPA Determination I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges (BNSF and Union Pacific) to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (See 90-percent plans - Attachment 1). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides nonmotorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non -motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, SegmentA will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. Page 2 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application u -r r Proiect Area l JJ Foster Gra Links\ • ` sloydsrL SC ++. —•\. sil sr • ti utuiic. KING CODUTYI Concrete Recycling Plant �g•1 3 } .r c � i" Black River Pump Station 314A4s! - .. Begin 1 ti'. Project \ ti, cs`15 \.5 s Fort Dent Park: and StaOre -. , ' .^ Spott%. Cornpiex ' . � n 1i tit i 1 CITY OF '. CITY OF „. •,�;. TUKWILA REHTOtd States. Kno Coact;, Ctt, rtP.-ruc, P.Ore't 2o•d, Y: SDCT. Parapt' etrix ij .-S N a rce ac �twe• Lenend: Proposed TraJAlignment Existing Tra I C3y Boundary +-+- Ra..load Parks and Wt4F4Y Pnorty Hah tat kitas set Meran LA:Ter POI Way S Proposed Culvert Proposed Rest Area Proposed Retaining Wall 6taek River Riparian Forest Waterworks Gardens ti A End 7F__ Project Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Lake to Sound Trail — Segmen! A Site Plan ofSegmentA of Lake to Sound Trail II. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila adopted a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) on August 15, 2011 that was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on October 14, 2011 and became effective October 28, 2011. A. Shoreline Environment Designation The shoreline environment designation for the project site is Urban Conservancy; the purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction is divided into a buffer area and non -buffer area. The shoreline buffer in the Urban Conservancy environment where a levee is present is 125 Page 3 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application feet and 100 feet where no levee is present. A levee exists along the Green River but not along the Black River edge of the project. Non -water oriented recreational facilities are a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy shoreline zone and in the buffer and non -buffer areas (TMC 18.44.050.B.1.d).) B. Trail Standards The Tukwila adopted trail standard is 18 feet wide paved trail (14 feet wide paved area with two feet of shoulder on both sides.) (Public Access to the Shoreline: TMC 18.44.100.C.2.) III. SHORELINE REGULATIONS: The Shoreline Administration section of the City's Zoning Code provides criteria for approval of a shoreline variance request (TMC 18.44.130.D.) The purpose of a shoreline variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards of the shoreline master program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the SMP regulations will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant. The SMP trail standard is codified in TMC 18.44.100.C.1. Applications for a Shoreline variance are processed as a Type 3 permit as outlined in the Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (TMC 18.104.) Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is forwarded to the Department of Ecology who make the final decision on a shoreline variance. Approval Criteria: A Shoreline Variance permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can respond in the affirmative to all six of the criteria (Shoreline Variance Permits, TMC18.44.130.D.4, which are listed below followed by the applicant's response. 1. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this Chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter; Applicant Response (drawn from both the response to the variance criteria and the variance narrative): The construction of a public trail is permitted in the Urban Conservancy Buffer per TMC 18.44.050; however, the trail size, as specified in 18.44.100 (C)(1) is incompatible with the 16-mile Lake to Sound Corridor project, which calls for a Page 4 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application 12-foot wide trail with 2-foot shoulders. This would result in incompatibility with the other multi -use portions of the regional trail system, and result in greater shoreline impacts than is necessary for a safe, functional trail. Staff Analysis: The reduction of the trail width from the City's adopted standard of 18 feet to 16 feet minimizes the impact on the existing trees as well as the amount of cut and fill in the river's buffer zone. The Green River trail, which will be joined at the west end of the project is 10 feet wide, with two foot shoulders on each side. 2. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.130.D.4. (Criteria for variance landward of OHWM) is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; Applicant Response: No special property characteristic or SMP requirement prevent the construction of this trail in the manner of adjacent properties or other like zoned properties in the shoreline jurisdiction. Rather, the City of Tukwila design standard for trail width (14-foot wide with 2 -foot shoulders) is inconsistent with the proposed design of the planned Lake to Sound 16-mile regional trail network (12-foot wide with 2- foot shoulders). As a King County -driven project with regional significance, the proposed trail is sited in multiple jurisdictions including the cities of Tukwila, Renton, SeaTac, Burien, Des Moines, and King County. To provide continuity between the multiple jurisdictions, King County selected a trail design that is compatible with King County's 2004 Regional Trail Inventory and Implementation Guidelines, the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 2012), the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO 2004), the WSDOT Design Manual, and best professional judgment based on what we have seen work in other locations. To change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface. Page 5 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail LI 6-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Staff Analysis: Staff concurs with applicant's response. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Applicant Response: There are no inconsistencies with the proposed alignment ofSegmentA with the goals and policies contained within the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan. The majority of the proposed alignment ofSegmentA is located in a public recreation overlay as identified in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. It is compatible with several goals and policies as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan as described below: Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.1: Parks, recreation opportunities and open spaces that are close to home and/or work and that are interconnected by safe streets, off-street trails and public transportation. Goal 6.2: A Network of Green Spaces - Recreational amenities, historical sites, rivers, wetlands, creeks, and other natural resources that are connected to each other and neighboring networks of lands. This network defines Tukwila as a Northwest city, and includes visually significant bands of vegetation that contrast with the built environment. Policy 6.2.1: Non -motorized transportation links between network lands Shoreline Master Plan Please see Section 1.2.1 of this report for an understanding of the proposed trail's consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan. Page 6 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Staff Analysis: The trail width, while less than the City's adopted standard, provides a wider area than currently in use in the area. A 16 foot wide trail as opposed to an 18 foot wide trail reduces impacts to the shoreline environment and more trees are preserved by the reduced width. Mitigation for the impact of existing tree removal include the planting of trees and shrubs at the required ratios of the Tukwila Shoreline Overlay standards for vegetation protection and landscaping (18.44.080.6.4.) The new trees will be located on the water side of the river bank. 4. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area; Applicant Response: The variance does not provide special privilege. It will result in a trail that is consistent with other connecting trail elements. Staff Analysis: The shoreline variance process is available to any applicant who believes the criteria apply to their project. Any variance request would be analyzed against the City's adopted SMP standards. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and Applicant Response: This reduction in trail sizing is the minimum necessary to afford relief. This variance requests to construct a 12-foot trail in lieu of a 14-foot trail in keeping with the vision of the Lake to Sound Feasibility Study, the design of the portion of SegmentA that extends into neighboring City of Renton, and the remaining, planned 16-mile multi -use segments of the Lake to Sound trail. As described previously, to change the proposed design for a small portion of the 16-mile system would result in incompatibility between segments and greater impacts to the shoreline including the potential for additional tree removal, clearing and grading, and stormwater runoff associated with increased impervious surface Staff Analysis: The relief from the Tukwila SMP adopted trail standard width is the minimum necessary to afford relief. Page 7 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Applicant Response: This project is highly compatible with the surrounding uses. As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. The proposed trail is also consistent with the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. Staff Analysis: In this instance, the public interest will not suffer a substantial detrimental effect by using a narrower trail width than from that adopted by the City of Tukwila. The trail width, while two feet less than the City's adopted standard, is still wider than current regional conditions and consistent with the width of the trail along its length. In addition, variances must also meet the two review criteria (WAC 173-27-140) that apply to all development. 1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. The proposed public trail and the improvements associated with the trail are permitted uses. The existing conditions of the shoreline are a lawn with a semi -formal landscape that includes trees planted linearly behind the sports field. An informal hard earth path providing an unimproved trail continues along the Black River shoreline and under the railroad tracks. Vegetation within the shoreline zone are a mix of natives, invasives and the plantings noted above. Page 8 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Looking east towards the BNSF railroad bridge along approximate location of proposed trail. To the right is the fence for the sports fields and on the left is the Black River. The applicant has provided a mitigation report with goals and objectives to mitigate for any loss of ecological shoreline functions. Specifications for compliance with the Tukwila SMP will be reviewed and conditions may be placed as part of the Shoreline Substantial Development application review and decision process. 2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. The trail project will not involve any structure other than an asphalt trail that requires little to no grading and retention of the surrounding soil and fencing under the railroad tracks. The tallest elements will be the trees once they achieve a mature height (Sheet MP1, Attachment 1,) the new chain link fence and canopy under the railroad tracks (Sheet D3, Attachment 1) and the signage (See Sheet C15, Attachment 1) that will not exceed 3 feet in height. There are no residences in the vicinity whose view of the water will be obstructed. Page 9 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application IV. COMMENTS: The public comment period closed on May 13, 2016 and three email comments were received. Response to the comments will be addressed as part of the review and decision on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. John Netter commented that he saw no issues with the plan. Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, provided comments (Attachment 2) that are summarized as follows: 1) The project removes trees greater than 4 inches in diameter thereby negatively impacting the temporal amount of wood regeneration. 2) The project will preclude or limit proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 identified in the Chinook Recovery Plan for WRIA 9. Picture of location for WRIA - 9 Project LG-17 Page 10 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L 16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application Picture of Location for WRIA - 9 Project LG-18 3) Continue to provide full safe access for Tribal fishing at the site during project construction. The City of Renton comment letter (Attachment 3) requested the following conditions be applied to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit: 1) All construction activity stop if cultural resource artifacts are discovered during construction. Notification of concerned Tribes, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the City of Renton Planning Division. 2) Contractors working in Tukwila and hauling within Renton comply with City of Renton haul route hours of 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. V. SEPA: The City of Renton acted as the SEPA lead agency. Part of Segment A is within the city limits of Renton. Renton issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on January 11, 2016. The SEPA determination, staff report and SEPA Checklist are Attachment 4. VI. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is consistent with the applicable shoreline variance criteria as follows: 1.) The strict application of the dimensional requirement of the Tukwila SMP would interfere with the County and City's effort to create a uniform paved trail system for users. 2.) A trail improvement of 18 feet versus the 16 feet would have a greater vegetation impact because of the existing trees along the shoreline and route for the trail. These existing conditions are not the result of the owners of the properties. The variance is Page 11 of 12 Lake to Sound Trail L16-0017-Shoreline Variance Application necessary for the project proponent to enjoy the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3.) The 16 foot wide trail will be compatible with other uses within this area and uses planned for the area and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. The comments received are not related to the variance request. 4.) The variance of two feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and will be consistent with the trails extension in the City of Renton and exceed the width of the existing Green River trail, with which it intersects. Variances are reviewed on a case -by -case basis and is a process available to any applucant who believes they meet the approval criteria. 5.) The variance of two feet is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 6.) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect because the negative environmental impacts of a wider trail will be eliminated and the trail will be consistent with the system wide design/width. 7.) The specific facts of the trail project indicate that the hardship of an 18 foot standard is unnecessary when considering the purposes for which the trait standard was originally adopted. 8.) The project will not interfere with the character of the shoreline and will result in a long term over a short term benefit by increasing public access to publically owned areas of the shoreline and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. VII. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the shoreline variance to the Department of Ecology. Page 12 of 12 TO: Ii 1 N. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number PL16-016 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building Planning Public Works Fire Dept. 10 Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A (City of Renton and City of Tukwila ) Application and supporting materials, including TIR, can be found at: Z:L2ST. Address: North end of Fort Dent Park east to City limits Date transmitted: 3/30/2016 Response requested by: April 15, 2016 Staff coordinator: Moira Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Plan check date: // 1_/G Comments prepared by: Update date: TO: Li City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number PL16-016 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building Planning Public Works Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A (City of Renton and City of Tukwila ) Application and supporting materials, including TIR, can be found at: Z:L2ST. Address: North end of Fort Dent Park east to City limits Date transmitted: 3/30/2016 Response requested by: April 15, 2016 Staff coordinator: Moira Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development KEGEI� J7 MAR 31 2016 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS File Number L16-b16 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: 0 Building 0 Planning 0 Public Works Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A (City of Renton and City of Tukwila ) Application and supporting materials, including TIR, can be found at: Z:L2ST. Address: North end of Fort Dent Park east to City limits Date transmitted: 3/30/2016 Response requested by: April 15, 2016 Staff coordinator: Moira Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Pv1(4 c (L o i.K S /-lam s /alp Plan check date: Comments Upda(e date: prepared by: r� TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number PL16-016 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building Planning Public Works Fire Dept. a Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Lake to Sound Trail — Segment A (City of Renton and City of Tukwila ) Application and supporting materials, including TIR, can be found at: Z:L2ST. Address: North end of Fort Dent Park east to City limits Date transmitted: 3/30/2016 Response requested by: April 15, 2016 Staff coordinator: Moira Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Na 1 s5ovQ5 or Pam' h leo-) Plan check date: W /1.1 Comments prepared by by , �(,1 i' Update date: JeA,i LLB 'L d zo t �d d� z c‘PoK) )/K)()-__ v k. /6 -00 /V 3/70‘a 5L /- ,a7 . d d L /� h 4(2 UV. `{d ; de is . dh;s W' 7 Mw7/ /7)(7na jr3cc(r_Y �u lQ Cr RECE _ fwt .t CITY OF LDevelopment Department of Conrrrrrinity Development 6300 Southcente, Botdemrd Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (2OO6) 431-3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL .DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Phis 'hoe: Planner: Application Complete (Date: Application Incomplete (Date: File Number: L ! C P /�/) / f Project File Number: Other File Number a e_se/ NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See 1.1.2 of the attached Permit Narrative and Justification Report LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, ifwcant, indicate !offs:), block and subdivision, acC•essstreet, and nearest itite)sei•tion. See 1.1.2 o the attached Per it Narrative and Justification Rep LIST ALL TAX L UMBERS (this in of Anion may 104. on your tcNitement or Ivin net). Parcel, number 232304-9001, 722950-0360.232304-9091, 722950-0350, 232304-9005 PROJECT VALUE (PLEAsE Arndt noclME:vrATIc DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the c • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfy development standards; and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom al Name: Jason Rich, King County Address: 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor, Phone: 206-277-4582 E-mail: jasonsich@kingcoUnty.gov SIgoature: - - • CPL P } 24E; I ▪ Pr jcc s Sho c' m \Ncx Sit_rciinc Ptmni ''. -I t-12 Stiles? Pius0)309360603\4 7d)9506 N 07/170014 !0:It3:;; Download CSV Fde A Shoreline Permit - Type 2 Permit Application Submitted Review for Completeness 1724 Clock Begins Notice of Application Internal Review Public Comment Negotiate w/ Applicant SEPA Determination Issue Shoreline Permit Filing Appeals Commence Activity Deadlines Letter of completeness should be mailed within 14 days of submittal. (Note - Day 28 is the absolute last day for the letter to go out.) Subsequent reviews must be completed within 14 days. Within 14 days of Complete Application Within 21 days of complete application Comment Period ends 30 days after Notice of Application 1724: Sec 309(4) J 15 or 21 days before Shoreline decision After SEPA appeal period expires. Date of filing is when DOE receives permit • 1 Applicant DCD Staff Submits Application If application is incomplete, applicant has 90 days to submit additional information • if incomplete • Planner reviews submittal against checklist, enters data into Permits Plus. Clerical makes fi and gives to Planning Supervisor, who assign5 planner. Applicant posts sign on site with Notice of Application. Provides DCD with affidavit of posting Planner reviews for completeness. Planner sei letter of (in)completeness. If complete, 1724 cl begins. 1 if complete Planner prepares Notice of Application - laminated, and leaves in will call box for applic and mails Notice of Application and hearing dE (if any) to the Parties of Record, Property Owners/Occupants within 500' and interested Agencies. Applicant provides revisions and additional information as needed. Planer routes to Departments for review. Department initial comments due to planner. Appeal must be filed with the Shoreline Hrg. Board within 21 days of date of filing w/Ecology no sooner than 21 days after permit is received by Ecology • Planner assembles Department/Agency and Public comments and coordinates and negotia, with applicant • Planner gives SEPA ana ysis to SRO via Planr Supervisor for SRO's signature at least 16 day before Shoreline Decision Planner completes SEPA process - mails deci to applicant, Ecology, agencies with jurisdictio and parties of record. • Planner prepares findings/recommendations fc PS/Director's review. Director signs permit. • Mail decision to Ecology, AGO and agencies v jurisdiction. Also mail notice of decision to the applicant, parties of record & interested agenc Note decision in Permits Plus and close file. BAR Hearing if required and permits are not consolidated by the applicant Cash Register Receipt City of Tukwila Receipt Number R7978 DESCRIPTIONS TECHNOLOGY FEE TECHNOLOGY FEE VARIANCE ZONING TOTAL FEES PAID BY RECEIPT: R7978 ACCOUNT R000.322.900.04.00 R000.345.810.00.00 QUANTITY PAID 0.00 0.00 $3,02610 $3,026.10 $144.10 $2,882.00 $3,026.10 GL 301.98.594.760.49.00 PA 91130101.1000.107 Date Paid: Monday, March 21, 2016 Paid By: TUKWILA CITY OF Pay Method: CITY ACCOUNT Jo Teri Svedahl c From: Robert Eaton Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 11:50 AM To: Teri Svedahl Cc: Rick Still Subject: FW: Lake to Sound Trail Hey Teri, the GL should be 301.98.594.760.49.00 -Robert From: Teri Svedahl Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:22 AM To: Rick Still Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail Ok —Just fyi: I am out from 1— 2, and can't take in permits after 4:00. Also, I'll still need the GL# Land Use and Sign application intake Hours are: M — F, 8:30 — 12:00 & 1:00-4:00 cS;.014ez, s scar ,s-,„c Task City of Tukwila I Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Ste 100 ITukwila WA 98188 Teri.Svedab1 TukwilaWA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. ** NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.** From: Rick Still Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:56 AM To: Teri Svedahl Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail .L 2S Trail project manager Jason Rich just informed me he was planning to come in this afternoon for permits. Thanks, Rick From: Rick Still Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 9:44 AM To: Teri Svedahl Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail I hope they let me know before they come in but sometimes that is asking for too much. If you need anything else please let me know. Rick From: Teri Svedahl Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 9:42 AM To: Brenda Holt; Rick Still Subject: RE: Lake to Sound Trail Thank you for the info. I will watch for the applications to come in. ** Rick — I'm not sure what this is - Please charge these fees to the Lake to Sound CIP, page #37 The Project Account number (PA#91130101.1000.107) is fine — however, I need the GL# as well. Thanks, Teri Teti Sveta /,9 t tioa Support Tausiciam City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Ste 100 ( Tukwila WA 98188 Teri.Svedahl@TukwilaWA.gov The City of opportunity, the community of choice. Q ** NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.** From: Brenda Holt Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 9:35 AM To: Teri Svedahl Subject: FW: Lake to Sound Trail Teri - see email from Rick below regarding a project that will be coming in for land use approvals. Brenda From: Rick Still Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 9:32 AM To: Brenda Holt Subject: Lake to Sound Trail Hi Brenda, King County is taking the lead on the construction of the Lake to Sound project. They have already met with you(r office) for a preliminary permit review and will be coming in for permits in the near future. The list below is what they have indicated will be "pulled". Please charge these fees to the Lake to Sound CIP, page #37, PA#91130101.1000.107 - is that enough numbers? Let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, Rick FEE: Shoreline Variance Tree and Landscape Modification Permit and Exceptions $3,026.10 $112.35 Substantial Development Permit (project valued at $3 million) $5,983.95 Generate Mailing List Database $467.00 Public Notice Mailing Fee per address for each mailing (materials and postage) $1 per notice ($50) Public Notification Signage Need to set up with Fast Signs once compilete application has been received — approximately $400. Total $10,039.40 South Tukwila, WA 98168 206-767-2344 Rick.Still@TukwilaWa.Gov ,Kale Stdd2, Director Tukwila Parks & Recreation 12424 42nd Avenue TU KW LA 'ARKS & $1,ECUATION The City of Opportunity, the Community of Choice. W (ICJ! ia Denis Law Mayor Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator December 5, 2018 David Shaw, Capital Projects Manager King County Parks 201 S Jackson St, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 RECEIVED DEC 112o1a Community Development SUBJECT: Shoreline Substantial Development, Variance, and Conditional Use Permit Status Lake to Sound Trail Segment A P LUA15-000257 Dear Mr. Shaw, The City of Renton (City) Department of Community and Economic Development has received your inquiry into the status of the Shoreline Substantial Development, Variance, and Conditional Use Permits that were approved by the City's Hearing Examiner on March 2, 2016 and -subsequently received approvals from the State Department of Ecology (DOE) with an effective date of filing of April 7, 2016. The revised two-year time requirement to commence construction now concludes on July 20, 2020 based on the findings of this letter. The proposal, known as Lake to Sound Trail Segment 'A', is a multi -use recreational trail that would traverse the Black River Riparian Forest, currently managed by the City's Community Services Department, and connect to the Green River Trail in Tukwila. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-9-190J.6 construction activities related to a shoreline permit must commence within two years of the effective date of filing. No construction activities related to this shoreline permit have commenced as of the date of this letter. King County Parks (applicant) and the Community Services Department began negotiating an Inter -local Agreement (ILA) that would establish roles and responsibilities, design, construction, operation, and Tong -term maintenance of the Renton segment of the Lake to Sound Trail on approximately August 7, 2016, four months after the DOE filing date. Additionally, the applicant submitted a civil construction permit application on December 29, 2016 and building permit applications on May 15, 2017 for the proposed trail improvements. The applicant continued with the permitting process while actively negotiating the ILA. However, the permits could not be issued by the Department of Community and Economic Development until the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the ILA. The ILA (Resolution No. 4358) was passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor on November IQ )n1 Q The effective date of the shoreline permits occurred on April 7, 2016. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-090(4) the permit time period that requires construction activities to commence within two years of the effective date does not include the time needed to obtain any other government permits and approvals that would authorize the development to proceed. The authorization from the City Council to enter into an ILA qualifies as a government approval needed for the development to proceed and therefore the time period between the negotiations to the adoption of the ILA resolution is excluded from the two year standard period of validity of RMC 4-9-190J.6. The ILA negotiations began approximately August 7, 2016, or four months following the date of filing, which effectively stopped the two-year clock. Therefore, the two-year date to commence construction activity shall have started retroactively on the Resolution No. 4358 adoption date, November 19, 2018. The revised two-year time requirement to commence construction now concludes on July 20, 2020, or one year and eight months from the adoption of Resolution No. 4358. Please contact me at (425) 430-6593 or mherrera@rentonwa.gov should you have any questions regarding this letter Sincerely, Matt Herrera, AICP Senior Planner cc: Misty Blair, Senior Shoreline Planner, Washington Department of Ecology, misty.blair@ecywa.gov Washington State Attorney General Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cailin Hunsaker, Parks and Trails Director Rohini Nair, Civil Engineer III Parties of Record: Suzanne Krom, Herons Forever Kate Stenberg, Herons Forever Jenny Bailey, Parametrix Jason Rich, King County Parks DEMOLITION NOTES: �r i 1 \ 1 10 STA 6t52. 11.0'LT L\, OHWM —{—- 1 .41"--r-'7-1KC PARCEL NO. 7229500360 t!'f +1 O 1 ��__- - =iZz " _ --ant i Q1 e�-��— 4/1� +uo t cc-- JI �,� C, I� t_\ -f. T J =F= � 1 -STA—+53, f.0 -RT 10 a Q r ��; �— 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN \ �-► +' Q 2I s i,, p, (1995 FIRM) \� ��_ ! ='l\ .1 1 f � t'' PAX - K ,_ ' 1+ TI KC PARCEL ND. 2323049005 \ 1 ... _._ BEGIN PROJECT BP STA.1+00 �. BLACK RIVER :GREEN RIVER TRAIL .1�A s.o� • cD— cc —cc —cc— . JX 1sj.{ • 7[ 1 pT______-------OVERHEAD \ 1--__ P. WATERLINE IKC PARCEL N0. 7229500360 r. a COUNTY \� > 1 37 RFNFON SHIXtELW05 KC PARCEL N0. 7229500350 . 0 1 ��- --_ BN5F \ Ln CD ACITYREN1OF 1UKWIU 0N OCT 36 SFKK2DMA9 REVISIONS DATE BY DESIGNED J. DVORAK DRAWN M. MILLER CHECKED O. KIKU TA f .3+00, A. FORT DENT PARK PLAN H ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FILE NAME 8L1521084PAT2T2DM-1 .roe No. . SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 al i • • • • EASEMENT`#720302, 150' WIDE DRAINA i 421 DITCH A �ACKR/VER ";°4P,,r 47B gq.'K'a7 KC PPNCELaNG N0. 7229500360 • gam COUNtt ''a, I IL`C, 36 RUMEN 9HORDAID—S, ONO r L_ ,r:,_.„2,,,4. � sue I'''llirldi ..,1-411) ,,,,v. ___74. ngtt ____ft ' if __----".. 3 (1,,_..----- 10 - - L. j''' "MI rL- "4+00 "J . r W '5 oILz o 0 Y � W 0 1-- U CY af f f�LaR���ff�ff�faffff -- rL 1 1 KC PARCEL NO. 7229500390 O 0 D_ , 1 O.W. RR AN7 NAY. CO. 1 a< > 1 1 1 lk]SEE - UPRR 1 01c/ U PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 I - - ;1\ -1 - 1 11 1 \\I 8+00- .I 1 - • IA l/ >pe KC PARCEL N0. 7229500320 ANNARCO KC PARCEL N0. 7229500330 0.W. RR AND NAY. CO. I RSFE - UPRR 011WM� 0• KC PARCEL N0. 2323049001 `72-"4j ....GIFT OF 71110MIA 2444 ,_ 4 � 1 Ali 1 KC PARCEL NO. 2323049003 1 -KC EAR,ca NM 142304906 i\. PROJECT PROJECT NAME KC PARCEL N0. 7229500360 O {4J CRY OF TUKWLA + / MET 36 REN10N 910REIANDS Q Community npvelo Dment LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL EKING.PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES SEGMENT A I I MAINTAIN 2VICTI1d7 uCTAI 2ATC 0 REMOVE PLASTIC TRAFFIC MARKING. OREMOVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER. FILL PAVEMENT DEPRESSION WITH LOOP SFALANT. V ADJUST CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE. SEE C-SHEETS FOR ELEVATIONS. OREMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. O6 INSTALL CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A. SEE KING COUNTY PARKS SIGN DETAIL IN THE APPENDIX OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OREMOVE BEAM GUARDRAIL OREMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 09 REMOVE METAL GATE. SALVAGE TO LOCATION PER THE ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. 0 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CHAIN UNK FENCE AND GATE. 11 RELOCATE ECOLOGY BLOCKS. 12 EXISTING UTIUTY STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FINISHED GRADE BY OTHERS. 0 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREE. SEE GENERAL NOTE 2. 15 PROTECT EXISTING TREE. REFER TO SECTION 2-01 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND DETAIL 0 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE MANHOLE TO FINISHED GRADE AND REPLACE EXISTING COVER WITH SLIP -RESISTANT, ADA-COMPLIANT COVER. 17 ADJUST WATER METER BOX TO FINISHED GRADE. 0 PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURE IN PLACE. TESC CONTROL NOTES: OINSTALL STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-40.20-00. 0 INSTALL HIGH VISIBIUTY FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WI WSDOT STD. PLAN 1-10.10-01. OINSTALL SILT FENCE IN ACCORDANCE yt •f-- WITH WSDOT STD. PLAN I-30.15-01 INSTALL HIGH VISIBIUTY SILT FENCE IN N..LIACCORDANCE WITH YiSDOT STD. PLAN 1.30.17-00. OINSTALL TEMPORARY BYPASS TO DIVERT WATER AROUND WORK ZONE. PROTECT DISCHARGE AREA FROM EROSION WITH PLASTIC SHEETING. OSANDBAG DAM. DEWATER CONSTRUCTION AREA DURING CULVERT WORK. GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS C1-C15 FOR SIGN REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. 2. CUT OR GRIND STUMP NO MORE THAN 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. EQUIPMENT THAT DISTURBS SOILS BELOW THIS UMIT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE TRAIL SEGMENT LOCATED BETWEEN STA 1+00 AND 6+50 IS LOCATED ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS ALERTED TO SECTION 1-07.16(4) OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. A PORTION OF ASPHALT REMOVAL IS UNDERLAIN BY A CONCRETE BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB, WHERE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ASPHALT REMOVAL SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE SLAB. REFER TO DETAIL H ON SHEET CS1 FOR SCARIFICATION DETAILS. LEGEND: ./ ./ SAWCUT CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK REMOVAL ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT REMOVAL -- HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE OR HIGH VISIBIUTY SILT FENCE, SEE PLANS. —0-0— SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION RIP RAP REMOVAL 90% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CLEARING, GRADING AND TCC/• F I A1111 DRAWSNG NO. 9 OF 57