Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L04-051 - HANSEN JON - KING COUNTY / NORTH WINDS WEIR HABITAT TREE CLEARING
]ON HANSEN KING COUNTY DNR NORTH WINDS WEIR HABITAT RESTORATION 2724 S 112 STREET L04 -051 • FILE NUMBER: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Notice of Decision DATE: October 25, 2004 L04 -051, Tree Clearing Permit L04 -066, Special Permission from the Director asking for a waiver of certain requirements of obtaining a Tree Permit. LOCATION: 11025 Tukwila International Blvd King County Parcel(s) 04230499114, 04230499118 APPLICANT: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks PROPERY OWNER King County ZONING DESIGINATION: MIC/H SHORELINE CLASSIFICATION: Urban NOTIFICATION: Pursuant to TMC 18.54.150 both Land Use Applications are Type I Decisions and there are no notification requirements. SEPA DETERMINATION: DNS issued by King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, dated May 24, 2004 OTHER REQUIRED CITY PERMITS: Type C Permit, City of Tukwila Department of Public Work's Department PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER AGENCIES: National Environmental Policy Act Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Concurrence, USFWS and NMFS Clean Water Act Section 404 Authorization, US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit, Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Resources Easement, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 STAFF: Alice Strand, Senior Planner Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner BACKGROUND: King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR) has applied for a Tree Clearing Permit and Special Permission from the Director for expectations to the requirements for issuance of a tree- clearing permit. The project area, commonly known as North Wind Weir is located at 11025 Tukwila International Blvd (TIB). While the property is address off of TIB it is actually one block off of TIB and direct access to the site is from S. 112 Street. This project is a component of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project and will restore salmon habitat along the lower Duwamish River. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT SURRONDING LAND USES The site is bordered by commercial and industrial uses. PROJECT INFORMATION Hydraulic Project Approval, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife The 3.27 acre site is currently undeveloped and has not been used for commercial or residential activities in some time. There are two concrete foundations on the site that are the remnants of two homes that use to occupy the site. The site is generally flat with the steepest slope on the site being three percent. Soils on the site consists of old industrial fill. The edge of the property along the River has been significantly altered and a large amount of rip rap has been used to separate the property from the Duwamish River. The purpose of the North Wind Weir Intertidal Restoration Project is to restore intertidal habitat within the lower Duwamish River, with the intent of specifically providing mudflat and saltmarsh habitats suitable for rearing and foraging by juvenile salmonids. This will be accomplished by removing fill material and regrading the site to intertidal elevations, reconnecting the site to the river, restoring the natural shoreline, and planting native intertidal and riparian vegetation. The project will involve the excavation and removal of approximately 65,000 cubic yards of fill and native soil material from the site. Much of the fill on the site is contaminated by hydrocarbons, likely from old underground storage tanks that were on the property. The majority of the site will be lowered to elevations ranging from -1 to +4 feet NGVD 88 and will be connected to the Duwamish River via an entrance off the east side of the rock weir and its associated scour pool. The applicant has submitted for Phase One of the project which involves the removal of much of the vegetation on the site and grading of the site which will include the removal of a significant amount of soil material. 2 The proposed work will involve the removal of a large number of significant trees within the shoreline environment (200 feet from the ordinary high water mark). TMC 18.06.775 defines a significant tree as a tree which is four inches or more in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above grade. SHORELINE REGULATIONS Phase I of this project is exempt from the requirement of having to obtain Shoreline Substantial Development Permit pursuant to WAC 173 -27 -040 (2)(P). TREE CLEARING PERMIT TMC 18.54 050 requires that a Tree Clearing Permit be obtained for the removal of any significant trees within the shoreline zone. TMC 18.54.080 lists the required information in order for the City to issue a Tree Clearing Permit. Additionally, under TMC 18.54.120 the applicant is required to submit a security instrument in the amount of the replacement cost of the removed vegetation. KCDNR has requested that the following code requirements and submittal requirements be waived in order to obtain a Tree Clearing Permit for the proposed project: 1. Reducing the number of trees required to mitigate the loss of significant trees and cottonwoods within 100 feet of the shorelines; 2. Reducing the size of the replacement trees to be planted; 3. Waiving the requirement for the posting of a bond/security; 4. Waiving certain plan requirements that relate to the landscaping plan; and 5. Allowing for the revegetation to be completed later in time (following phase 2), after the additional site grading has been completed. The Director of Community Development (Director) has the authority under TMC 18.54.090 to waive certain submittal requirements, which includes items three and four above. Additionally, under TMC 18.54.140 the Director may grant certain exceptions from the requirements of TMC 18.54.140. DISCUSSION Given the nature of the project, the waiver request is not unreasonable. The project when complete would restore much needed transitional habitat for juvenile salmonoids. In this low tide environment, juvenile salmonids would have the opportunity to feed, rest, and undergo smoltification prior to out - migrating through the Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the habitat would provide refuge, foraging, and possibility breeding habitat for a variety of other urban - adapted native fish and wildlife species. Request to reduce the number of trees required to mitigate the loss of significant trees and cottonwoods within 100 feet of the shorelines. The existing shoreline environment on the project is not natural, but is the result of over one century of human impact, including construction activities, fill and extensive modification of the shoreline along the property. This project will remedy many of these human activities that have occurred on the property. 3 When the project is complete, a majority of the property will be regularly inundated by tidal waters and will not be able to support tree species. A portion of the tidal area will be restored to an intertidal marsh with plant species that are typical of such an environment. Tree plantings are also limited by the presence of a Seattle City Light power lines to the north and an existing industrial building and concrete retaining wall to the south. The conceptual tree planting plan submitted by the applicant will utilize those areas capable of supporting large tree species. However, the number of trees added to the property would be less than what would be required per TMC 18.54.130 (2) (b). Reducing the size of the replacement trees to be planted TMC 18.54.130 (3)(c)(1) requires that replacement trees be 2.5 inch in caliper for deciduous trees and that evergreen trees be at least six to eight feet at time of planting. The applicant has noted that large trees perform poorly on this type of restoration project and would request to use smaller size trees. The applicant has noted that larger trees tend to take longer to establish on the site which leads to a high mortality rate. While smaller trees have a higher success rate. The applicant has more experience in these types of restoration project than the City and the City should defer to their judgment. Waiving the requirement for the posting of a bond/security The applicant has asked that due to the fact that they are a public agency that the City waive the requirement to the post a security bond. They have noted that typically they have not been required to bond for these types of restoration project. The applicant has noted that Phase I of the project is fully funded and that Phase II of the restoration project is in the 2005 budget that has been presented to the King County Council. The project is also dependent on Federal funds and King County will if necessary provide the necessary funding should the Federal funding become unavailable. This is the first example of an outside agency requesting the issuance of a tree- clearing permit. Waiver of bond requirements are often made for City projects, such as when Public Works submits for land use permits. Thus, there is precedent for waiving the bonding requirement. Additionally, given the large financial commitment that King County has already made on this project, it is highly unlikely that they would not complete the project. King County, like the City of Tukwila also has responsibility to follow the laws of all jurisdictions that they are working within. Waiving certain plan requirements that relate to the landscaping plan As this is a multi -phase project it is premature at this time for the applicant to submit a landscaping plan as required in TMC 18.54. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan to the City and a final landscaping plan will be submitted prior to the start of work on Phase I1 of the restoration project. Allowing for the revegetation to be completed later in time (following phase 2), after the additional site grading has been completed 4 Phase I of the project will only consists of removal of the contaminated soil on the site. Phase II of the project will include extensive site excavation, final grading, revegetation, and connection of the newly created marsh habitat to the river. Phase I of the project will be completed during the fall /winter of 2004. Phase II of the project must occur during a "fish" window which is a low tide cycle. The proposed tree clearing work will includes the work for Phase I. The applicant will submit the landscaping plan as part of Phase II for City review. DECISION CRITERIA An expectation to TMC 18.54 shall not be granted unless all of the following criteria are met: • Strict compliance with the provisions of this code may jeopardize project feasibility or reasonable use of the property. • Proposed vegetation removal, replacement, and any mitigation measures proposed, are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter • The granting of the expectation or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Strict compliance with the provisions of this code may jeopardize project feasibility or reasonable use of the property Strict adherence to the City's Tree Regulations on this project would make this habitat restoration project unfeasible. The goal of this project is to restore much - needed habitat for juvenile salmonoids within the lower Duwamish River. This will be done by remedying many of the man made impacts that have occurred on the property and restoring the property to a natural state. A natural state does not necessarily include trees, but can include other vegetation species, which the applicant has proposed to installed. Given other restraints on the property such as the presence of overhead power lines and nearby industrial buildings it would be impossible to add the number of replacement trees as required in TMC 18.54. Proposed vegetation removal, replacement, and any mitigation measures proposed, are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter TMC 18.54.020 provides the intent of the City's Tree Regulation chapter. This chapter includes a variety of goals all of which are aimed to mitigate building and site development. This project will revert a site that was an industrial development to a natural state which will be used for salmon habitat. This project will improve the quality of Tukwila's Urban Environment (TMC 18.54.020 (2). The project will remove a significant amount of contaminated soil and restore the natural state of the shoreline area. Additionally the project will enhance the aesthetic and ecological environment of the City of Tukwila by providing wildlife habitat, removing contaminated soils which are likely leaching into the Duwamish River, and enhancing the visual and aesthetic qualities of the City's urban environment. The granting of the expectation or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity 5 In this case, granting the expectation will actually be beneficial to the public welfare and adjacent properties. The applicant will be removing a significant amount of contaminated soil and restoring the natural shoreline of the property. One of the policies of the King County Shoreline Master program, which the City of Tukwila administers is to where appropriate restore natural flora and fauna. Additionally, Policy 2 under the Conservation Element of the King County Shoreline Master Program notes that the natural topography of the site should not be substantially altered. With this project, the applicants will be restoring the site to a natural state. Policy 4 under the Conservation Element of the King County Shoreline Master Program encourages that the wildlife and aquatic habitats be protected, improved, and if appropriate increased. This project will increase the amount of habitat for juvenile salmoniods within the lower Duwamish River. CONCLUSION The North Wind Weir Habitat Restoration Project will provide essential salmon habitat within the lower Duwamish River. While the project will not comply with the code requirements listed under TMC 18.54, it does meet many of the goals of the chapter. The City's Tree Regulation Chapter is concerned with the environmental consequences of land development, the North Wind Weir Habitat Restoration Project will restore an area of land along the Duwamish River that has been impacted by previous industrial development. The overall environmental benefits of the project off set the minimal environmental impacts that will result from the project. DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL The removal of significant trees along the Duwamish River on the following King County Parcel(s) 04230499114, 04230499118 is approved. Additionally, the Director has allowed that the following expectations be made, pursuant to TMC 18.54.140: 1. The applicant may reduce the number of trees required to mitigate the loss of significant trees and cottonwoods within 100 feet of the shorelines. 2. Due to the applicant's expertise in the habitat restoration projects the applicant may reduce the size of the replacement trees to be planted. 3. The letter submitted by Don Althauser on October 21, 2004 shall substitute for the posting of a security bond in relation to the Tree Clearing Permit. 4. The landscaping plan does not have to be submitted during'Phase I of the project. The applicant will be required to submit a landscaping plan prior to start of Phase II of the project. 5. To reduce the impact of the project on wildlife within the Duwamish River, revegetation may be completed following Phase II of the project, but revegetation of the site must be completed by August 31, 2006. Steve Lancaster, Director Community Development APPEAL INFORMATION /0 - Zs• O4 Date: 6 TMC 18.140.010 allows for the Tree Clearing Permit and the Special Permission of the Director to be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. A Notice of Appeal must be submitted to the City of Tukwila within 14 -days from issuance of this Notice of Decision. The Notice of Appeal must include the following: 1. The Name of the appealing party. 2. The address and the phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors in fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of the appeal shall be limited to matter or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall be distributed by the Department to the body designated to hear the appeal and to parties of record pursuant to TMC 18.112.020A. 7 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 13 I, 1Jitt ( HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: V: C 1A9A Notice of Public Meeting it _t Ixesf014 - &- Project Number: L, b i-i -it)c ( Levi{- -oco. Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Person requesting mailing: Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Nbi � b 1 07 c Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a (1? day of year 20blf in the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: V: C 1A9A f 1-4 24 _ D, , ri2J} (,,, 6,7, it _t Ixesf014 - &- Project Number: L, b i-i -it)c ( Levi{- -oco. e Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: 114.A4A (11,0 ' c Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a (1? day of year 20blf in the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM .S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION EPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( )9 EPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC '( jf DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE K () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION O C. DEPT OF PARKS &REC KC. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA UBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY UGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEFT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ( ) POUCE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES () SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMSICHKLIST.DOC CHECKUST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHOREUNE PERMIT MAIUNGS FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DMSION* () OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DEV. • SEND CHKUST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES SCHOOLS/UBRARIES UTIUTIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES MEDIA () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) KC. TRANSIT DMSION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ()FOSTER UBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY () HIGHUNE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERIWATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROD. () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY 4 ),SOUND TRANSIT DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) C1.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) — Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross - sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan - Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P: ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMS\CHICLIST.DOC Alice Strand - RE: FW: North Wind's Weir Permit status - L04 -051, L04 -066 and PW04 -065 Page 1 From: "Hansen, Jon" <Jon.Hansen @METROKC.GOV> To: 'Jill Mosqueda' <jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 10/22/04 11:59AM Subject: RE: FW: North Wind's Weir Permit status - L04 -051, L04 -066 and PW04 -065 We are not doing irrigation as part of this permit request. If irrigation is to be installed, it will be done as part of Phase II and be submitted for review and approval by both Tukwila Public Works and Community Development under separate permits. Alice raised the issue, I presume, because we asked for a deviation from the Significant Tree regulations which are the subject of the two CDC permits. To review them, I guess she felt the need to be assured we would eventually deal with those issues. Since we will be submitting full permit submittals for Phase II work, we feel that gives everyone ample opportunity to ensure the planting and any proposed or required irrigation meets standards. - -- Original Message--- - From: Jill Mosqueda [mailto :jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:25 AM To: Jon.Hansen @METROKC.GOV Cc: Alice Strand; Jim Morrow; Jack Pace; Steve Lancaster Subject: Re: FW: North Wind's Weir Permit status - L04 -051, L04 -066 and PW04 -065 ** High Priority ** Jack Pace has not talked to me. have not seen L04 -051 and L04 -066. These permits were not routed to Public Works and I do not know what the scope of work is for these permits. So, I can not speak to them. I do not know how these permits are related to PW04 -065. For PW04 -065: ALice Strand has indicated to me, by e-mail, that the irrigation will be installed under PW04 -065, which is contrary to what you have submitted for your scope of work and contrary to our three conversations on this subject. Irrigation plans include PW issues and need a PW permit for the connection to the main, the meter and the backflow prevention. If irrigation actually is part of your scope of work, as ALic has indicated, then I would have to rescind my approval pending submittal of irrigation plans. In order to issue PW04 -065, ALice or someone in the Planning Department must approve the permit. IF Planning has issues with the scope of work (the irrigation) for PW04 - 065, then Alice or someone in Planning needs to deny the permit so that you, the applicant, can respond. Unless the scope of work changes, PW approved this permit on Oct 7th and has no further action to take, except to issue the permit once Planning approves it or issue a denial once Planning denies the permit. I refer you to Alice Strand and Jack Pace for questions regarding this permit. Alice Strand - RE: FW: North Wind's Weir Permit status - L04 -051, L04 -066 and PW04 -065 Page 2 L. Jill Mosqueda P.E. »> "Hansen, Jon" <Jon.Hansen @METROKC.GOV> 10/22/04 10:26AM »> Jill, When we were in the office yesterday, I understood that Jack Pace (sp ?) needed to talk with you to make sure all of your issues were resolved. Has He visited with you on the subject? Please advise. Jon -- Original Message From: Laurie Werle [mailto:lwerle @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:17 AM To: Jon.Hansen @METROKC.GOV Subject: Re: North Wind's Weir Permit status - L04 -051, L04 -066 and PW04 -065 I haven't heard anything yet. As soon as I've got an approval on PW04 -065, I'll let you know. I don't handle L04 -051 or L04 -066. Those are strictly planning permits. »> "Hansen, Jon" <Jon.Hansen @METROKC.GOV> 10/22/04 10:12AM »> Laurie, Is there any word on the permits for the North Wind's Weir Project? Please advise. Jon CC: Alice Strand <astrand @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, Jim Morrow <jmorrow @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, Jack Pace <jpace @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, Steve Lancaster <slancaster @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Alice Strand - Re: north wind's weir Page 1 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Alice Strand Date: 10/20/04 4:46PM Subject: Re: north wind's weir Alice, thanks for getting back to me. You indicate the irrigation will be installed as part of PW04 -065. If that is so, then the applicant needs to provide the irrigation plan for review and approval as part of this permit. To get the irrigation plans, you need to deny PW04 -065 and require an irrigation plan per Planning code. The applicant will revise the plans and bring the irrigation plan in for review and approval. When that happens, PW will change the description in P+ to include irrigation and then both Planning and PW can look at the irrigation plan. I hope that helps. If I can help with this, let me know. »> Alice Strand 10/20/04 03:38PM »> I realize that irrigation is a planning responsibilty..however, I wanted to keep you informed because: 1) you emailed me specifically about irrigation plans and this permit a couple weeks ago, 2) I noticed you specifically referred to an irrigation plan not being part of the first phase of this project in your description on pw04 -065 and 3) Jack told me that pw has an ongoing concern with the backflow of irrigation systems into the river ( ?) If you have no interest in irrigation for this permit, please let me know and I will not involve you in that aspect of this permit. A landcaping plan w/ irrigation will be part of this permit because it is tied in with the tree removal /special permission permit for the first phase. Alice CC: Jack Pace October 20, 2004 Jon Hansen 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: North Winds Weir Intertidal Restoration: L04 -051, L04 -066 Dear Mr. Hansen: Your applications for a Tree Clearing permit and a Special Permission, Director permit for deviation from tree regulations for the first phase of North Winds Weir Intertidal Restoration located at 2724 South 112 Street, Tukwila, WA have been found to be complete. on August 31, 2004 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. 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. Before these permits can be issued, you will need to provide a means of guaranteeing that the project has funding available to cover costs to its completion, including the replacement of trees as presented in the site plan. Because King County is a public agency, an actual bond is not needed. In lieu of a bond, the City requests a signed letter that includes the following: 1) the costs of the project to its completion 2) assurance that the project is included in the applicable capital improvement funding plan 3) assurance that full funding has been allocated to the project. 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. Sinc rply, 669 S Allce Strand Sqnior Planner Ciiy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervison Jill Mosquda, Public Works NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206- 296 -6519 206 - 296 -0192 Fax Name of Proposal: North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Description of Proposal: The purpose of the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project is to restore important intertidal habitat within the lower Duwamish River, with the intent of specifically providing mudflat and saltmarsh habitats suitable for rearing and foraging by juvenile salmonids. This will be accomplished by removing fill material and regrading the site to intertidal elevations, reconnecting the site to the river, restoring the natural shoreline, and planting native intertidal and riparian vegetation. The project will involve the excavation and removal of approximately 65,000 cubic yards of fill and native soil material from the site. The majority of the site will be lowered to elevations ranging from -1 to +4 feet NGVD 88 ( +1.35 to 6.35 MLLW) and will be connected to the Duwamish River via an entrance off the east side of the rock weir and its associated scour pool. Location of Proposal: CORRECTION LT R# Determination of Non - Significance Fr= CEIVED OCT 0 4 2004 ( UKWILA PUBLIC WORKS The project area is located along the eastern bank of the lower Duwamish River at approximately river mile 6.2, in the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, within the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project area encompasses approximately 3.27 acres, bordered on the west by the Duwamish River and a fringe of intertidal habitats, to the north by Seattle City Light property, to the east by an existing industrial facility (Pacific Strapping Inc.), and to the south by South 112th Street (Thomas Brothers Map page 625, D -6). Responsible Official: Daryl Grigsby Position/Title: Division Director, Water and Land Resources Division Address: 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 Phone: 206 - 296 -6585 DATE: OVA SIGNATURE: D104 -2:M123 5/18/04 Po)ew ods Determination of Non - Significance North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Page 2 Proponent and Lead Agency: Contact Person(s): The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON REQUEST (for a nominal photocopying fee). THIS DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) is issued under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal until after June 10, 2004. Comments must be submitted or postmarked by that date. Any appeals to this project must be submitted to King County Superior Court by July 1, 2004. Since the DNS is for an action not classified as a Land Use Permit decision, there is no King County Administrative appeal, according to King County Ordinance 12196, Section 51A4. For additional information, please contact: Jon Hansen, Project Manager Ecological Services Unit King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 D/044:MI23 • } y `y„ • 1 t� King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Jon Hansen, Project Manager, 206 - 296 -1966 5/18/04 CORRECTION LT R# 1 King County ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project EC EIVED OCT 0 4 2004 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Purpose of the Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environ- mental 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 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 a 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 the proposed project, if applicable: North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project 2. Name of Applicant: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 Contact: Jon Hansen, Senior Ecologist Phone: 206 - 296 -1966 Fax: 206 - 296 -0192 4. Date checklist prepared: May 2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (include phasing, if applicable): Project construction is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2004 and will be completed in late summer 2005 or 2006. The project will be constructed in three distinct phases. The first phase will be completed in the summer of 2004 and involve the removal of soil tainted with hydrocarbons. The second phase will involve extensive site excavation to remove nearly 65,000 cubic yards of soil material. The third phase will focus on.final grading, revegetation, and connection of the newly created marsh habitat to the river. This third phase will be completed during a low tide cycle sometime during the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife- approved construction window of 2005 or 2006. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The current proposal is a component of the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program. While there will be numerous other projects constructed under this program, they are all functionally independent from this proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Draft Environmental Assessment prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist 1 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist ■ Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Restoration Plan for the Green/Duwamish River Basin Ecosystem Restoration Program, prepared by the Seattle District Corps and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks in December 2003. • Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Study, Final Feasibility Report, prepared by the Seattle District Corps, October 2000. • Programmatic Biological Assessments for the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program, King County, Washington. Separate documents were prepared for species under National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) jurisdictions for the Seattle District Corps by Jones & Stokes, June 2000. ■ Seattle's Urban Blueprint for Habitat Protection and Restoration: Review Draft, prepared by the City of Seattle's Salmon Team, June 2001. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No other applications are pending approval for any proposals affecting this proposal. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • National Environmental Policy Act; • Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Concurrence, USFWS and NMFS; • Clean Water Act Section 404 Authorization, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; • Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit, Washington State Department of Ecology; ■ Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency, Washington State Department of Ecology; ■ Aquatic Resources Easement, Washington State Department of Natural Resources; • Hydraulic Project Approval, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); ▪ Type C Construction and Type E Potential Disturbance Permits, Tree Clearing Permit, and Shoreline Management Permit, City of Tukwila. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on the project description.) The purpose of the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project is to restore important intertidal habitat within the lower Duwamish River, with the intent of specifically providing mudflat and saltmarsh habitats suitable for rearing and foraging by juvenile salmonids. This will be accomplished by removing fill material and regrading the site to intertidal elevations, reconnecting the site to the river, restoring the natural shoreline, and planting native intertidal and riparian vegetation. As a result of this project, the native habitats and natural processes conducive to the - survival of juvenile salmonids would be restored at this site. The resulting intertidal mudflat, saltmarsh, and riparian habitats would provide D/04- 2:M122 2 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist critically important transitional habitat where juvenile salmonids would have the opportunity to feed, rest, and undergo smoltification prior to out - migrating through Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean. These habitats would also provide important refuge, foraging, and perhaps breeding habitat for a variety of other urban- adapted native fish and wildlife species. The project will involve the excavation and removal of approximately 65,000 cubic yards of fill and native soil material from the site. The majority of the site will be lowered to • elevations ranging from -1 to +4 feet NGVD 88 ( +1.35 to 6.35 MLLW) and will be connected to the Duwamish River via an entrance off the east side of the rock weir and its associated scour pool (see attached plan sheet). This will create approximately 1.66 acres of tidal channel and associated intertidal mudflat (below elevation +4 NGVD 88) and approximately 0.76 acre of intertidal and high marsh between elevations +4 and +10 feet NGVD 88 ( +6.35 and +12.35 MLLW). A scrub -shrub community between elevations +10 and +12 feet NGVD 88 ( +12.35 and +14.35 MLLW) of approximately 0.17 acre will gradually transition to a forested riparian buffer encompassing approximately 0.29 acre to the top of the area of excavation. The existing shoreline along the project site will be heavily modified by site excavation and removal of the majority of the shoreline protection (that is, existing riprap and concrete rubble). The upstream side of the entrance channel will be armored and its bank stabilized to better maintain the existing hydrodynamics of the shoreline, better preserve the undisturbed portion of the existing saltmarsh, and support a self - maintaining channel opening. The top and backside of the armoring will be capped with soil and planted with vegetation (likely willows) to increase habitat function and improve aesthetics. On in- coming tides, the site will fill with water through the tidal channel, flooding the mudflat and marsh areas. On very high tides, incoming water will also likely overtop the existing marsh of the site and flood into the site through the restored marsh - along the northern edge of the site. On outgoing tides, water will flow off of the restored marsh and mudflat and exit the site through the tidal channel. The slopes and elevations are designed for the mudflats and marsh to drain completely at low tides; the tidal channel may retain some ponded water during some of the higher low tides of the year. This proposal will require grading of the western side of the existing intertidal marsh to match graded contours with existing contours. The proposal will thus result in the loss of the 0.06 acre of the westem extent of the existing intertidal marsh (approximately one -third of the marsh) and its replacement with approximately 0.76 acre of restored intertidal marsh habitat that will ultimately be of similar functional value to invertebrates, fish, and birds. Native species planted within the restored marsh area will likely include a variety of species selected for the anticipated tidal regime and salinity conditions of the site, such as Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbyei), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserine spp. pacica), hardstem bulrush ( Scirpus acutus), softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), and Douglas. aster (Aster subspicatus). Other emergent species may also be considered for the site, such as slough sedge (Carex obnupta), small - fruited bulrush (Scripus microcarpus), and spike rush (Eleocharis spp.) based on the presence of these species in reference patches of intertidal vegetation along the Duwamish River. D/04- 2:M122 3 5/18/04 In order to reduce grazing by geese within the newly planted marsh, a complex of goose excluders will be installed over and around the entire mudflat and marsh areas. Based on designs implemented on other restoration sites along the Duwamish shoreline, the excluders will use open -weave steel mesh fencing to prevent `walk -in' or `float -in' access and overhead cables to prevent `fly -in' access to the marsh. The large mesh of the fencing does not restrict access by juvenile salmonids. It is anticipated that these goose excluders will remain in place for a minimum of three years post - planting to allow the restored marsh time to establish and spread sufficiently to withstand herbivory by foraging geese. In order to minimize the functional and temporal loss of the existing marsh, the portion of the marsh to be graded will be salvaged just prior to grading and replanted within the restoration site at the same elevation. Salvage will be accomplished by cutting the root -mat of the existing marsh into.sections, sliding a steel plate under the root -mat; and then lifting out sections of the marsh and its root -mat. The salvaged pieces of marsh will then be transplanted to the appropriate elevation contour in the restored marsh within the same tidal cycle. If possible, the salvaged marsh will be transplanted contiguous with retained areas of the marsh to maximize the likelihood that it would re -root with minimal dieback. The expectation is that much of the relocated marsh would re -root within the restoration area and would thus retain its temporal and functional value to the suite of benthic invertebrates, fish, and wildlife that currently utilize this marsh. 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 plan, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project area is located along the eastern bank of the lower Duwamish River at approximately river mile 6.2, in the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, within the City of Tukwila, Washington (Sheet 1 of the attached plan set). The project area encompasses approximately 3.27 acres, bordered on the west by the Duwamish River and a fringe of intertidal habitats, to the north by Seattle City Light property, to the east by an existing industrial facility (Pacific Strapping Inc.), and to the south by South 112th Street. The project area is directly across the river from an intertidal habitat restoration project (the Cecil B. Moses Park) recently completed in early 2003 by the Elliott Bay Duwamish Restoration Panel that included the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks and the City of Seattle. D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist 4 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (underline one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site is very flat with the exception of the riprap -faced riverbanks, which lie at a slope of approximately 40 percent. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 40 percent and is found along the armored banks of the Duwamish River. D/04- 2:M122 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, sped them and note any prime farmland. Due to the degree of dredging, filling, and industrialization of the lower Duwamish River, little is directly known about the native river delta soils. The soils in this area were likely fine materials from alluvium mixed with organic materials from the vast amounts of plant material produced in the estuarine marshes. These soils are generally very deep, poorly drained, and subject to being compacted and destabilized when disturbed. Due to the history of excavation, fill, and varied industrial uses of the project site, the native soil horizon is generally not evident until approximately 14 feet below the existing ground surface. The native soil horizon is generally characterized as a very dark gray to black colored fine sandy loam to silty clay loam overlying an organic rich silty clay loam. From just below the surface to a depth of approximately 14 feet, a mixture of historic fill consisting of sand and other fine- grained soil, steel slag; bricks, and steel debris characterize much of the site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. However, the banks of the Duwamish River, which are quite steep (see above), have been stabilized with riprap to prevent erosion. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate the source of fill. Approximately 65,000 cubic yards of soil and fill will be removed from the site and disposed of in an approved manner. This material is being removed to create intertidal habitat along the river's edge. Approximately 300 cubic yards of riprap /angular rock would be placed along the upstream slope of the entrance channel (see attached drawings) to stabilize the entrance slope and to prevent changes in the existing split in river flow over the rock 5 5/18/04 weir. It is important to note that the shoreline along the property is already heavily armored and that the project will yield a substantial reduction in bank armoring. f Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist The finished project area will be subject to the dynamic forces of both tidal and fluvial flows. While every effort will be made to design and construct the project so that its final contours resemble those of a naturally formed tidal marsh, real tidal and fluvial forces will certainly influence those contours via minor erosion and deposition of sediment. There will be small- scale, temporary increases in turbidity within the river channel as a result of removal of the shoreline riprap, stabilization of the entrance channel, salvaging portions of the native marsh, and connection of the intertidal channel to the river. In order to reduce temporary increases in turbidity and potential effects on aquatic species, all `in- water' construction work will take place during the appropriate fish window (August 1 to August 31, or as otherwise determined by WDFW) and will take place during the lowest portions of the tidal cycle. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Two large concrete building pads will be removed from the site during construction, so the overall impervious surface area of the site will be reduced as a result of the project. A small amount of impervious surface will be added to construct an interpretive trail that will run along the east and north sides of the site. The trail's surface will be crushed gravel and will comprise less than 1 percent of the final project site's area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The majority of the work proposed will be completed while the project site is isolated from the river. This will be accomplished by excavating the site from east to west, allowing the existing soil to act as a wall or "berm" between the construction work and the river. Erosion that occurs during this portion of the project will be self - contained and not cause off-site turbidity. By installing an effective rock construction entrance, and providing for street sweeping as necessary, the project will reduce the potential for sediment to be tracked onto local streets and ultimately reach the river via the stormwater drainage system. To further reduce the potential for erosion and turbidity, the connection to the river will be made during the appropriate fish window (August 1 to August 31, or as otherwise determined by WDFW) and will take place during the lowest portions of the tidal cycle. Regardless of the techniques employed, there will be some release of sediment as a result of the project. Because such increases will occur only during the portions of the construction sequence that require `in water' work, turbidity impacts will be localized and temporary, and are expected to return to normal levels as soon as `in- water' 6 5/18/04 2. Air 3. Water D/04- 2:1122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist construction activities are completed. Turbidity monitoring during construction will ensure that these temporary increases are in compliance with State Water Quality Standards. An erosion and sediment control plan has been developed (Sheet 4 of the attached plan set) to minimize erosion and sediment transport during project construction. Specific measures to be employed will include traditional approaches such as silt fencing, • construction entrances, and temporary coverage of exposed soils, but will also cover specialized construction techniques and sequencing. The plan is intended to evolve as construction progresses and will be modified as needed to adjust to changing site conditions. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Operation of heavy equipment, trucks, and similar equipment is expected to generate a limited amount of exhaust during construction. The completed project, however, will not affect current emission levels. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the air, if any: Construction will be performed in accordance with the regulations of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. 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 the type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The project site is on the west bank of the Duwamish River at approximately river mile 6.2. The Duwamish River flows into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The project site also encompasses a small intertidal marsh. 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. Yes. Virtually all of the project work will be either in or adjacent to the Duwamish River and the small intertidal marsh on its west bank at river mile 6.2. 7 5/18/04 D/04- 2:M!22 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist The purpose of the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project is to restore important intertidal habitat within the lower Duwamish River, with the intent of specifically providing mudflat and saltmarsh habitats suitable for rearing and foraging by juvenile salmonids. This will be accomplished by removing the fill and regrading the site to intertidal elevations, reconnecting the site to the river, restoring the natural shoreline, and planting native intertidal and riparian vegetation. This will involve moving approximately 65,000 cubic yards of material and lowering the surface elevation of the site by as much as 20 feet in some areas. A detailed grading plan showing proposed excavation limits is attached. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that could 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. Approximately 65,000 cubic yards of material (mostly fill with a large constituent of steel slag, bricks, steel debris, and existing bank riprap) will be removed from 2.88 acres on the west bank of the Duwamish in order to enlarge the intertidal marsh. Removal of this fill will lower the elevation of the site, allowing tidal flows from the adjacent Duwamish River to enter and greatly expand the intertidal marsh. In addition, approximately 300 cubic yards of riprap (taken from existing armored banks that will be removed as a part of this project) will be placed on the upstream slope of the entrance channel (Sheet 3 of the attached plan set) to prevent erosion of that bank. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No water will be mechanically withdrawn or diverted, but the project will allow flows from the Duwamish River to enter and inundate approximately 2.88 acres of intertidal marsh and wetland that will be created by the project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain?' If so, note location on the site plan. Since construction of the Howard Hanson Dam in 1963, floods have been controlled within the river system, not allowing discharges above the regulated high flow of approximately 12,500 cubic feet per second (as measured at the U.S. Geological Survey gauge in Auburn). Thus, there is very little difference between the 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, and 50 -year events downstream of the dam, all of which range between 11,000 to 12,500 cubic feet per second. Flood events that inundated the adjacent floodplain no longer occur, and large, channel- altering flows have an extremely low probability of occurrence. Under current conditions, the 100 -year floodplain is confined within the river channel in the vicinity of the proposed project. As part of this project, the 8 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist existing riverbank along the site will be removed and the 100 -year floodplain expanded onto the site. Although the floodplain will be widened in this location, there will be no change in the base flood elevation, nor will there be any increased risk of flooding to other properties. 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. Construction of the project may cause small- scale, temporary discharges of turbid water and/or sediment to the river channel, but there will be no discharges • of waste material into surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn, nor will any water be discharged to groundwater. 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. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. This project will not generate any stormwater or surface water runoff and will, in fact, decrease impervious surface areas and associated runoff. An existing stormwater discharge pipe originating on the property to the east currently runs under the site and discharges into the river. This 8 -inch pipe will be relocated to avoid critical elements of the new habitat, but will continue to discharge to the river. An oil/water separator will be added to the system to enhance water quality treatment. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This project will generate no waste materials that could enter surface waters, except for minor and short-term discharges of sediment during construction. D/04- 2:M122 9 5 /18/04 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: An oil/water separator is being added to the stormwater system crossing the property to enhance water quality treatment. It is important to note that this is not required, but is a voluntary action being taken in cooperation with the adjacent property owner to help improve existing conditions. 4. Plants D/04- 2:M122 a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other: black cottonwood, white poplar Evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs: blackberry Grass: creeping bentgrass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbyei), hard -stem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserine spp. pacifica), brass - buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), western lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis occidentalis), and fat - hen saltbush (Atriplex patula) ❑ Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ Other types of vegetation The site is mostly open with a variety of native and non - native grasses present. Several large cottonwood trees are present along the site perimeter and scattered across the property. The site also has a few white poplar trees and a thick coverage of blackberries along the riverbank and near the abandoned building foundation near the center of the site. North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Mostly blackberry and grasses will be removed from the site. Several deciduous trees will be uprooted but retained on the site as woody debris to form fish and/or wildlife habitat. Native marsh and wetland vegetation will be salvaged and replanted on the site. c. List threatened or endangered species known to "be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The existing riprapped shoreline armoring and thicket of blackberries will be removed and replaced with intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh fringed by native riparian plantings. Approximately 1.66 acres of the site will become intertidal mudflat, fringed by an approximately 0.76 -acre band of intertidal and high marsh that will gradually transition to a scrub -shrub and forested riparian buffer. While the proposal will result 10 5/18/04 5. Animals D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist in the loss of 0.06 acre of the existing intertidal marsh, the disturbed portions of the marsh will be salvaged and replaced by the restored intertidal marsh habitat. The resulting marsh will be much larger and provide greater function to invertebrates, fish, and birds. There will be an increase in the extent and species diversity of riparian and upland vegetation on the restoration site. While most of the existing trees on the site will be removed (and retained as large woody debris), approximately 0.47 acre of scrub -shrub and forested riparian buffer will be created around the outer edge of the site. a. Check or underline any birds or animals that have been observed on or near the site, or are known to be on or near the site: ® Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ® Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: river otters mice and voles, raccoons opossums ® Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Birds The shorelines and waters of Elliott Bay provide habitat to a number of terrestrial and water - dependent birds. These species include loons, grebes, cormorants, scaups, mergansers, coots, and gulls. The homed grebe and red - necked grebe (State Monitor species), as well as the western grebe, Brandt's cormorant, merlin, and common murre (State Candidate species) and the common loon (State Sensitive species) may also forage over or use surface waters of Elliott Bay. Similarly, abundant waterfowl species also use the waters of the lower Duwamish River. Conunon species include greater scaups, ring- necked ducks, scoters, American wigeons, Canada geese, mallards, common goldeneye, mergansers, and bufflehead. Other common species include western grebes, double - crested cormorants, American coots, pigeon guillemots, and several gull species. Shorebirds observed in the vicinity of the Duwamish waterway have included sandpipers, dunlins, and snipe. These waders are generally present in the tidal mudflats and marshes or along sandy shorelines. Several other bird species expected to inhabit the affected area are either Federal Species of Concern or are listed by Washington State as Monitor, Candidate, or Sensitive species. The peregrine falcon (Federal. Species of Concern and State Sensitive), osprey (State Monitor), great blue heron (State Monitor), and purple martin (State Candidate) all occur fairly frequently within the area and have been observed using habitats within and along the lower Duwamish River. Osprey are frequently seen foraging for fish over Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River and appear to be fairly tolerant of human disturbance when choosing nesting locations. Since 1999, osprey nests have been documented on utility poles or other man-made structures in at least three locations within five miles of the project site: on 11 5/18/04 D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist the east side of the Turning Basin, at Terminal 105 (Crowley Marine facility), and at Terminal 18 on Harbor Island (Priority Habitat and Species database search June 5, 2003). A pair of osprey fledged two chicks in 2003 from a nest atop a constructed nesting platform approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the project site at the Hamm Creek restoration site. Similarly, great blue herons are also frequently seen wading within the lower Duwamish River and its remaining intertidal habitats. Three heron rookeries have been documented within the vicinity of the proposed project: approximately five miles downstream of the site on the forested slope west of Terminal 105 (nests unoccupied in 2000), the Black River rookery approximately three miles southeast has been active since 1985, and the Seahurst park rookery has been active since 1981 approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the site (Priority Habitat and Species database search June 5, 2003). In recent years, private individuals have erected nest boxes around Puget Sound and the lower Duwamish River and, these boxes have successfully attracted nesting purple martins. As of June 2003, ten pairs were nesting in Jack Block Park on the west side of Harbor Island, a pair was nesting at Kellogg Island, and one to two pairs were nesting at Terminal 105. There are currently no nest boxes erected farther upstream (that is, toward the project site) than the Terminal 105 site (Kevin Lee, personal communication, June 9, 2003). Terrestrial Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles Due to its highly developed and disturbed character, only a few disturbance - tolerant amphibians, reptiles, or terrestrial mammals would be expected to occur within or around the proposed restoration site. Adult tree frogs and garter snakes may occur within the powerline corridor to the north of the site. Raccoons, opossums, rats, mice, and voles may inhabit the remnant patches of riparian trees and blackberries that fringe the lower river and the southern edge of the site. Fish Multiple migratory runs of both native and hatchery reared salmonid stocks occur seasonally in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River (Warner and Fritz 1995). The use of the Duwamish River by salmonids is believed to be predominantly as a migration corridor. However, some rearing and foraging by juvenile salmonids is likely, particularly in the limited shoreline areas with some structural diversity. Returning adult salmon congregate at the mouth of the Duwamish River prior to upstream migration, and juvenile salmonids may use the nearshore reaches of Elliott Bay to transition into marine waters. There are nine species of anadromous salmonids that have been documented in the Green/Duwamish River: summer /fall chinook salmon, fall run coho salmon, fall run chum salmon, cutthroat, sockeye, and summer /winter steelhead trout, and native char (recently broken into two species —Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Pink salmon are also present in the system, but generally not in large numbers, perhaps due to the dramatic loss of estuarine and intertidal habitats 12 5/18/04 D/04- 2:MI22 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist in the lower Duwamish River. Chinook and chum utilize Elliott Bay and the Duwamish estuary more extensively than other anadromous species (Weitkamp and Schadt 1982; Meyer et al. 1981), especially when congregating at the mouth of the Duwamish River during their adult return. The principal juvenile salmonid out - migration season occurs from mid -April through mid -June for steelhead, coastal cutthroat, coho, and chinook; chum salmon generally out - migrate slightly earlier, between mid -March and early May (Grette and Salo 1986, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1998). b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bald eagle and chinook salmon are both known to occur near the site. Chinook salmon migrate both upstream and downstream past the project site, and the lower Duwamish is known to be an important rearing area for juvenile and smoking chinook. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. Nine species of anadromous salmonids are known to migrate upstream and downstream in the Duwamish past the project site. Although both winter and summer steelhead use this system, most adult salmon migrate upstream during the summer and fall. The principal juvenile salmonid out - migration season occurs from mid -April through mid -June for steelhead, coastal cutthroat, coho, and chinook; chum salmon generally out - migrate slightly earlier, between mid -March and early May. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: As the result of this project, the native habitats and natural processes conducive to the survival of juvenile salmonids would be restored at this site. The resulting intertidal mudflat, saltmarsh, and riparian habitats would provide critically important transitional habitat where juvenile salmonids would have the opportunity to feed, rest, and undergo smoltification prior to out - migrating through Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean. These habitats would also provide important refuge, foraging, and perhaps breeding habitat for a variety of other urban- adapted native fish and wildlife species. 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. None. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 13 5/18/04 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: Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health D/04- 2:M122 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 toxic chemicals or hazardous waste will be used or generated by this project. Elevated levels of hydrocarbons, however, have been detected in the soil. Testing completed to date indicates that these contaminants are located near the surface and can be completely removed during the first phase of construction. King County, in consultation with the Washington State Department of Ecology, is developing a remediation plan for the removal and proper disposal of these materials. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Maintenance and refueling of equipment to be used will be done outside of the river, wetland, and their buffers. b. Noise: North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist 1) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project (for example, traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Some noise from adjacent industrial areas is expected, but this will have no effect on construction or the completed project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example, traffic construction, equipment operation, other)? Indicate what hours . noise would come from the site. During construction, noise from equipment operation will increase noise levels. Temporary increases in the vicinity of the project could be as high as 90 decibels. The completed project will not change existing noise levels. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities will comply with the provisions of the King County Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3139). Equipment operation will typically be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Work necessary to make the connection to the river, however, will need to be done at the lowest available tide; therefore, it may be completed outside of normal working hours. 14 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Existing land use consists of vacant industrial land on historic fill material. All structures have been demolished and the fill material is largely unvegetated, with the exception of scattered black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) trees and non - native species of blackberry (Rubus spp.). D/04- 2:M122 The lower end of the river (downstream of the Turning Basin and the North Wind's Weir restoration site) is the heavily industrialized portion known as the Duwamish Waterway. The shoreline along the Waterway is intensively developed for industrial and commercial operations, and the upland areas are similarly heavily industrialized by a variety of water - dependent industrial users. Beginning just downstream of the project site and continuing to the mouth, over -water structures (such as piers and docks) occupy 12,150 linear feet (2.3 miles) on both banks of the river. This represents about 20 percent of the lower estuarine shoreline (King County Department of Natural Resources 2001). As a major shipping route for containerized and bulk cargo, the navigation channel is subject to intense marine traffic, in addition to recreational boaters and other river users. Upstream of the North Wind's Weir restoration site, the shoreline and uplands are similarly developed with intense industrial, commercial, and residential development. Large land users include The Boeing Company, the King County Regional Airport (Boeing Field), and the Museum of Flight. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. All structures have been removed from the site. Two concrete pads remain, but will be removed as a part of this project. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial). f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial). If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban. 15 5/18/04 D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. The Green/Duwamish River and its shoreline are classified by the City of Tukwila as an environmentally sensitive area. 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: Not applicable. L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project is one of a growing number of projects in the lower Duwamish River designed and constructed to enhance and at least partially replace lost biological diversity and capacity. Opportunities for such projects are rare, given the value and use of industrial properties along the waterway, and the importance of restoring habitat for anadromous salmonids has been emphasized by agencies from the local to the federal level. Therefore, the use of publicly owned land that is suitable for such a project is consistent with the goal of increasing the biological capacity of important and impaired systems such as the Duwamish. 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: Not applicable. 16 5/18/04 10. Aesthetics D/04- 2:M122 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? No structures will be constructed for this project: In fact, the project will entail a decrease in the elevation of the site. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Construction of the project will change the character of the views from adjacent properties. The completed project will provide a widened river cross section with views of the mudflat, marsh, and riparian vegetation. Adjacent properties and recreational users of the trail across the river will also have the opportunity to observe fish and wildlife using the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Native plantings will enhance the aesthetics of the area. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? During what time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Describe 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 Green/Duwamish River Trail runs along the western side of the Duwamish River, beginning approximately one mile downstream of the proposed restoration site. The trail supports day -use recreation such as jogging and biking by local residents and workers. The 3 -acre Cecil Moses Memorial County Park is located along the trail, directly across the river (to the west) from the proposed restoration site. The park includes an intertidal restoration site as well as landscaping and bathroom facilities. A 17 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist footbridge crosses the Duwamish approximately 50 feet upstream of the proposed project site, which will allow. trail users to effectively view the site and gain access. The rock weir located just off the western edge of the property attracts kayakers to the rapids that form as the river cascades over the rocks. Birdwatchers and people interested in watching the kayakers and the rapids can view the river from the footbridge. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. The existing trails and other recreational amenities will not be impacted by the project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will enhance both the aesthetics of the site and its value to those interested in birdwatching or wildlife viewing. Public access and educational opportunities will also be enhanced via a trail and interpretive signs. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the state listing are located within the proposed project area. The site does lie adjacent to a Native American legendary location referred to as North Wind's Weir. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The project area is situated within the usual and accustomed fishing and shellfish harvesting areas of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe on the Duwamish River. The Tribe historically and presently harvests salmon and shellfish from the lower river. Gill - netting for salmon occurs within the river just downstream of the project site. This location would have been a prime fishing site for Native Americans, and the adjacent shores are considered likely to contain evidence related to this activity. The proposed restoration site is adjacent to a rock protrusion from the bank known as the North Wind's Weir. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The site is covered with several feet of fill material that was likely imported when the area was being developed for industrial use. During project planning and design, backhoe trenches were excavated to determine if subsurface archaeological deposits were present below the fill (see attached plans). The backhoe testing indicated that the upper levels of native soils within the project area were removed sometime in the past and the area covered with imported fill of varying characteristics. The extreme depth D/04- 2:M122 1 5/18/04 North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist of the fill greatly reduces the possibility that any of the proposed alternatives could affect buried archaeological deposits. If cultural or archaeological resources are uncovered or encountered during project construction, work will cease immediately, and appropriate steps necessary to protect those resources will be taken prior to resumption of construction. If resources are discovered, the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the King County Office of Business Relations and Economic Development, and any affected tribal groups will be notified immediately, and an on - site inspection will be conducted by a state - certified archaeologist and other qualified resource professionals. A mitigation plan will be prepared prior to construction resuming at the site. In addition, discussion of the measures and the possibility of uncovering materials of archaeological or historic significance near inland waters will be discussed during a preconstruction conference with the construction crew /contractor prior to performing the work on - site. 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. The site is served by a dead -end spur of South 112th Street. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Not applicable. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. It is common for recreational users to park along the shoulder and at the end of South 112th Street to access the river for fishing and to launch kayaks. Construction of the proposed project will not eliminate these opportunities. 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). D/04- 2:M122 No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. 19 5/18/04 g. 16. Utilities D/04- 2:M122 f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 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. a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None. None. North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Environmental Checklist b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed. 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: � �1 (Al► /1 • Title: St4. a tel. t� Date Submitted: 5/ 1 8/0 Y 20 5/18/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION VICINITY MAP AND INDEX SHEET ADDRESS UNE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112th ST. CITY, COUNTY, STATE. ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING, WA, 98168 SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP SW 116TH ST SW 128TH ST m S 96TH ST. ilii . ......... .. I L III � 0 S BOEING ACCESS RD 0 0 S 112TH ST TO TACOMA PR OJEC SITE TO SEATTLE z c i 0 SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 VICINITY MAP AND SHEET INDEX 2 LEGEND AND NOTES 3 GRADING PLAN AND NOTES 4 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 5 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 6 CROSS SECTIONS 7 PLANTING PLAN. DETAIL AND NOTES 8 SOIL TEST PIT LOCATIONS NOT TO SCALE No. 1 Of 8 Sheets APPUCANT: USACE—Seottle District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4, T.23N, R.4E Air Ar .w .r AV o o o 0 e e D D ADDRESS LINE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. CTTY, COUNTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING. WA. 98168 BOUNDARY ODOSTNq SUFfIENT SURVEY) B OUNDARY CREFEREPME, CURFIENlT B FNEV CENTELFE TNN FROMM LEE ammo AwswXCo meiePAIMA U cr arnrmeau traIpeen CURB FENCE, CHAN LEAK FENCE; WOOD, SPLIT RAL WEILAND ( ARSFVBWALP) PERIMETER tETANNQ WALL CONTOUR MAIM COPIFOUR (MOO SUITARY SEWER POwal (AERIAL) STOMA DRAINAGE RiOHT -CF —WAY IEXISTNd) WATERYALVE UTLUTY POLE ANON:a ROCK WE MORI YANIOLE MIK CORER xSCREE FIB +TACK MUM OUTFACE) WEE (DECIDUOUS) 6ANTARY WES WHOLE TYPE I CATCH BASH REAR +CAP MA E DEMON SET NAL ♦ 81*E1 RP iilOM SPED: S sT NEW LOG w /ROOTWAD NEW ROOTWAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION LEGEND AND NOTES NOTES: 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY WAS TO ILLUSTRATE VISIBLE IMPROVEMENTS, SHOWN HEREON. 2. HORIZONTAL CONTROL (BASIS OF BEARING AND COORDINATES) ARE DERIVED FROM A FAST STATIC GPS SURVEY BASED ON THREE(3) WSDOT MONUMENTS. 2614 N= 190033.799, E =1281712.332, ELEV.= 23.420, GP17005 -72 3294 N= 209324 .816, E= 1268664.417, ELEV.= 16.181, GP17009 -239 2626 N= 206301.040, E =1273368.009, ELEV. =17.619. GP17005 -184 ALL VERTICAL CONTROL IS BASE ON NGS jSY0264 APSSM FOUND POSITION: N =223028.637, E =269578.098. WITH PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 16.20 3. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, BASED ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE TIDAL BENCH MARK PIDISY0284 (USGS TIDAL 16), ELEVATION =16.20 4. THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED OCTOBER OF 2002. BOUNDARY NOTES; THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON 15 BASED ON THE KING COUNTY ASSESSOR PLAT OF THE AREA. AUGMENTED BY THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWING OF S.R. 99. NO TITLE REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO APS SURVEY&MAPPING. LLC. AND ACTUAL PROPERTY LOCATION MAY VARY. NO SCALE No. 2 Of 8 Sheets APPUCANT: USACE — Seottle District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4, T.23N, R.4E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION GRADING PLAN AND NOTES ADDRESS LINE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. CITY, COUNTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING, WA, 98168 • 4 • 100 200 SCALE: 1 INCH s 100 FEET No. 3 Of 8 Sheets 03 0 � OW z taw O W mu) 6 O co n Of 0 N_ O M N APPUCANT: USACI:— Seottte District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4, T.23N, R.4E TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (TESL) NOTES 1. The implementation of these TESC plans and the construction, maintenance. replacement. and upgrading of these TESC facilities is the responsibility of the TESC supervisor until all construction is approved. 2. The boundaries of the clearing limits shown on this plan shall be clear) identified by a continuous length of survey tape (or fencing. if required prior to construction. During the construction period. no disturbance beyond the clearing limits shall be permitted. The clearing limits shall be maintained by the TESC supervisor for the duration of construction. 3. The TESC focilities shown on this plan must be constructed prior to or in conjunction with all clearing and groding so as to ensure that the transport of sediment to surface waters, drainage systems, and odjacent properties is minimized. 4. The TESC focilities shown on this plon are the minimum requirements for anticipated site conditions. During the construction period, these TESC focilities shall be upgraded as needed for unexpected storm events and modified to account for changing site conditions (e.g. additional sump pumps. relocation of ditches and silt fences. etc.) 5. The TESC facilities shall be inspected daily by the TESC supervisor and maintained to ensure continued proper functioning. Written records shall be kept of weekly reviews of TESC facilities during wet season (Oct. 1 to 6. March 31) and monthly reviews during the dry season (April 1 to Sept. 30) 6. Any areas of exposed soils, including roadway embankments, that will not be disturbed for two days during the wet season or seven days during the dry season shall be immediately stabilized with the opproved TESC methods (e.g., seeding. mulching. plastic covering, etc.). 7. Any oreo needing TESC measures, not requiring immediate attention, shall be addressed within fifteen (15) days. 8. The TESC facilities on inactive sites shall be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a month or 48 hours following a storm event. 9. The clearing operation shall not flush sediment -laden water into the downstream system. 10. Stabilized construction entrances and roods shall be installed at the beginning of construction and maintained for the duration of the project. Additional measures, such as wash pads may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean for the duration of the project. 11. Where straw mulch for temporary erosion control is required. it shall be applied at a minimum thickness. TESC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. Pre - construction 2. Flog or fence clearing limits. 3. Post sign with name and phone number of TESC supervisor. 4. Grade and install construction entrance(s). 5. Install perimeter protection (silt fence, brush barrier, etc.). 6. Construct sediment ponds and traps. 7. Grade and stabilize construction roods. 8. Construct surface water controls (interceptor dikes, pipe slope drains, etc.) simultaneously with clearing and grading for project development. 9. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with King County standards and manufacturers recommendations. 10. Relocate erosion control measurers or install new measures so that as site conditions change the erosion and sediment control is always in accordance with the King County TESC minimum requirements. 11. Cover all areas that will be unworked for more than seven days during the dry season or two days during the wet season with straw, wood fiber mulch, compost, plastic sheeting or equivalent. 12. Stabilize all areas that reach final grade within seven days. 13. Seed or sod ony areas to remain unworked for more than 30 days. 14. Upon completion of project, all disturbed areas must be stabilized and bumps removed if appropriate. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES ADDRESS LINE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. CITY, COUNTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING, WA, 98186 0 No. 4 Of 8 Sheets 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 100 200 SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE /NOTES IMPLEMENT THE TESC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION AND REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PADS. EXCAVATE THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE TO DESIGN GRADES LEAVING AN EARTHEN BERM OF EXISTING SOIL AS A BARRIER BETWEEN THE EXCAVATION AND THE DUWAMISH RIVER. THE EARTHEN BERM WILL A HAVE A MINIMUM TOP WIDTH THAT IS THE GREATER OF 15 FT. OR AS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. SIDE SLOPE OF THE BERM SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2H: 1 V OR AS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE TOP ELEVATION OF THE EARTHEN BERM WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT HIGHER THAN THE EXPECTED HIGH TIDE ELEVATION THROUGH THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS ARE ENCOUNTERED, OVER EXCAVATE A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET BELOW PETROLEUM TAINTED SOILS AS DIRECTED BY CORPS OR KING COUNTY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. LIMITS OF CONTAMINATED SOILS WILL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD AND /OR WITH LAB TESTING PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING. CONTAMINATED SOILS WILL BE STOCKPILED SEPARATELY AND BE TRANSPORTED TO AN APPROVED DISPOSAL SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS. IN AREAS OF OVER EXCAVATION, BACKFILL WITH CLEAN NATIVE MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE CORPS OR KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS. BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR PLANTING, BUT NEED NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS TOPSOIL. IF SUITABLE NATIVE SOIL IS NOT AVAILABLE, BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL OR EQUIVALENT MIX AS APPROVED BY KC OR COE BIOLOGIST. IN AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN FOR VEGETATION, UNSUITABLE EXISTING MATERIAL WILL BE OVEREXCAVATED BELOW DESIGN GRADE TO A DEPTH AS DIRECTED BY CORPS OR KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS AND BACKFILLED WITH MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR PLANTING. INSTALL LWD PER THE SITE PLAN. HYDROSEED ABOVE MHW. PLACE JUTE /COIR FABRIC ON 3:1 SLOPES BELOW MHW. INSTALL PLANTINGS PER THE PLANTING PLAN. REMOVE THE EARTHEN BERM, MAKING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE DUWAMISH RIVER. THE EXCAVATION OF THE EARTHEN BERM SHALL BE TIMED WITH TIDAL CYCLE TO MINIMIZE EROSION. THIS MAY REQUIRE THE BERM TO BE REMOVED IN STAGES. IF THE ENTIRE BERM CANNOT BE REMOVED WHILE THE TIDE IS OUT, THE.EXPOSED OPENING AND SIDE SLOPES WILL BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC SHEETING AND ANCHORED DOWN WITH SAND BAGS TO PREVENT EROSION WHEN THE TIDE COMES BACK IN. IF THE EXCAVATION OF THE EARTHEN BERM MUST BE DONE IN STAGES, THEN THE OPENING IN THE EARTHEN BERM MUST BE A MINIMUM OF X FEET WIDE PRIOR TO THE RETURN OF THE HIGHER TIDES (DETERMINED BY HYDRAULICS ENGINEER), OTHERWISE ANOTHER METHOD MUST BE CHOSEN. THIS IS TO PREVENT SIDE CUTTING OF THE SLOPES AND EROSION CAUSED BY HIGHER VELOCITIES OF THE TIDE FLOWING IN AND OUT OF AN OPENING CHANNEL THAT IS TOO SMALL IN SIZE. INSTALL ACCESSNIEWING PATH. INSTALL OSPREY POLE. INSTALL HAND LAUNCHED BOAT RAMP. APPLICANT: SA USACE- SeaYtie District King County ONRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4, T.23N, R.4E LEGEND: TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOL NAME • REFERENCE MULCH (D-11) � - SF SLT FENCE (0-1I) oN ACCESS ROAD issanffessCE STAR0JZE CONST. (0-15) anooc SP SEDIMENT POND (0 -23) • SEDIMENT CO STANDARDS APPENDIX D OF THE TONG COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANUAI. 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ADDRESS UNE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. CITY, COUNTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TUKWILA. KING. WA, 98186 CATCH BASIN INSERTS • ,...__ + , • • BEF. ! TESL: N01ES: 1. SEDIMENT PONDS WALL BE PLACED ON SITE AS NECESSARY TO CAPTURE SEDIMENT AND SETTLE FINES. 2. CLEAN WATER IN THE EXCAVATION. AS DETERMINED BY THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS, MAY BE PUMPED DIRECTLY TO THE DUWAMISH RNER. 3. EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE THROUGH THE PROJECT EXCAVATION MAY BE ENCOUNTERED. THIS PIPE SHOULD BE REMOVED SO THAT R IS FLUSH WRF! THE GROUND AT DESIGN GRADE AND A ROCK PAD PROVIDED TO DISSIPATE ENERGY TO A POINT OF FIAT GRADIENT THAN 3:1). TEMPORARY .PIPING SHOULD DIRECT THIS STORMY/AMR DIRECTLY 10 THE DUWAMISH RNER WHILE THE PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 100 200 SCALE 1 INCH = 100 FEET No. 5 Of 8 Sheets MORE NOTES SEE SHEET 4 OF 8 APPUCANT: USACE — Seattle District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4. T.23N, R.4E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL. RESTORATION CROSS SECTIONS ADDRESS UNE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. CITY, COUNTY. STATE. ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING. WA, 98186 ELEVATION VIEW 80 160 SCALE: 1 INCH � 80 FEET No. 6 Of 8 Sheets APPUCANT: USACE — Seattle District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL-04--02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4. T.23N, R.4E NAVD 88 SEATTLE AREA 'floc TABLES MHHW 397 11.32 NHW 8.12 10.47 MLW .47 2.82 MLLW -2.35 0 \` ruetuuue�mu►e�ui,�e��t,�� \\ \11 t lI i.C1 1, 1 ......ee .Pe :n��iei:ae�1:t �nT.al.iA ai: i :�i * * *i • U ® Cores tyngbri f=:1 Aster Sub.Pbotue I VEGEGOON NUDFLAT rumnons MUD RAT Wchampro eoespKoeo Q Sckpus solidus PolenlBO peeks Co - WIXOM PaentBa pod0ca BX —1 4 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DERGENT VEGETATION 'RPM_ PI ANTRN: IN EMERGENT ARF/.S aititcort AREAS CITY, COUNTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING, WA, 98186 • WJaw Dogwood Cottonwood anknonberly Sack twlMwry hawthorn Irann 10 10 12 ELEV. NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION PLANTING PLAN, DETAIL AND NOTES ADDRESS UNE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. EXISTING GROUND/BEGIN 10 dogwood O wJow cuttings e cottonwood RIPARIAN/UPLAND 12 BAorepine hawthorn Cotto Thimbiliberry Pah Ng Loot Maple Sidon m r e. Haulm. F4 Neelko Twee 100 SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET No. 7 Of 8 Sheets PACIFIC STRAPPING CO. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ADO 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL TO AU. PLANTING AREAS. TOPSOIL IS TO BE WORKED/TILLED INTO TOP 12 INCHES OF EXISTING SOIL. 2. MULCH AREAS ABOVE ELEV. 10 WITH 3 INCHES WOOD MULCH. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT 18 TO RESTORE IMPORTANT INTERTIDAL HABITAT WITHIN THE LOWER DUW AMISH RIVER. WITH THE INTENT OF SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING MUDFLAT AND SALTMARSH HABITATS SUITABLE FOR REARING AND FORAGING BY JUVENILE SALMONIDS. THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REGRADING THE PROJECT SITE TO INTERTIDAL ELEVATIONS. RECONNECTING THE SITE TO THE RIVER. RESTORING THE NATURAL SHORELINE. AND PLANTING NATIVE INTERTIDAL AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION. THE RESULTING INTERTIDAL MUDFLAT. SALT MARSH. AND RIPARIAN HABITATS WILL PROVIDE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TRANSITIONAL HABITAT WHERE JUVENILE SALMONIDS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FEED. REST. AND UNDERGO SMOLTIFICATION PRIOR TO OUT - MIGRATING THROUGH PUOET SOUND TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. THESE HABITATS WILL ALSO PROVIDE IMPORTANT REFUGE. FORAGING. AND PERHAPS BREEDING HABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF OTHER URBAN - ADAPTED NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES. OF SUCCESS THE PROJECT WILL SE DEEMED SUCCESSFUL IF THE DESIRED INTERTIDAL HABITATS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES ARE CREATED AND THE SITE DOER NOT EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT BANK EROSION. IT 1S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT RIVERINE SYSTEMS ARE DYNAMIC AND MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN ELEVATIONS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR OVER TIME. CONTINGENCY PLAN IF THE PROJECT FAILS TO MEET THE STATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE DESIGN TEAM WILL EVALUATE THE CONDITIONS AND IN CONSULTATION WITH PROJECT SPONSORS. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND REGULATORY AGENCIES, W ILL PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES. AS THIS IS A NON- COMPENSATORY. RESTORATION PROJECT. HOW EVER. THE DECISION TO PURSUE FURTHER ACTION THAT 18 NOT REQUIRED TO PROTECT EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. ADJACENT ROADWAYS. UTILITIES OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DESIGN TEAM AND THE PROJECT SPONSORS. NOTE: 70 CONVERT 10 9L10TLa AREA 1I0E TABLES DAT(IL. A00 2.35 FT. 200 1 1 1 J RPAR AN/UPLANO PIANIWGS 12 -TOP OF SLOPE KRA MERIDIAN` W.S.LG.N.Z. NAVD88 NOTE: IMPACTED MARSH AREA TO BE SALVAGED AND REPLANTED ON -SITE AT SAW ELEVATIONS I PLAN VIEW 1 TRANSDIOM. SCRUB/SHRUBS (ELEV. 10-12) MUDFLAT AREA: NO PLANTING PROPOSED (ELEV. -1 TO 4) 0 WO.OLBE NESTING BOX APPUCANT: USACE— Seattle District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4, T.23N, R.4E IWJORVML DEMENT CONIANIY (DIV. 4-10) , ..e" .„ ,./ 0, •a• A l I { I ADDRESS UNE 1: DUWAMISH INTERTIDAL NEAR 2724 S. 112TH ST. • ....P..Y INTERTIDAL MARSH LOCATION PER FIELD OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT. NOT SURVEYED. CITY. COUNTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TUKWILA, KING, WA, 98186 PLAN VIEW 'Jd . • 03 -BH -106 9 4 LEGEND 03 —BH -101 BACKHOE TEST PIT ® YEAR, NUMBER & LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NORTH WINDS WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION SOIL TEST PIT LOCATIONS • 0 ` , ' ' r4 03 -BH -108 • ® ; 03 -BH -101 %e' , a „fa, -. 03 -BH -102 • , 1 B 03 H -107 03 -BH -105 • • • 100 200 SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET No. 8 Of 8 Sheets t i 03 -6 • 903 -BH -104 • • • • • MERIDIAN W.S.LG.N.Z. NAVD88 APPUCANT: USACE — Seattle District King County DNRP REFERENCE No.: PL -04 -02 WATERWAY: DUWAMISH RIVER • • S.T.R.: SE 1/4 S.4, T.23N, R.4E Cleanup Action Plan North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Site 11025 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington 98106 October 2004 Prepared For: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 Prepared By: CDM 11811 NE 1st Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 CDM Project No. 19897.42526 1 1 A Report Prepared For: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 CLEANUP ACTION PLAN NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION SITE 11025 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98106 October 2004 Lance E. Peterson, P.G. Senior Hydrogeologist CDM 11811 N.E. 1st Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/453 -8383 CDM Project No. 19897.42526 Hydrogeologist to 204 \c p ,, ed Ge .< Eric Peterson t:: Contents Section 1 Introduction 1 - Section 2 Site Setting and Background 2.1 Site Location and Description 2 -1 2.1.1 Location 2 -1 2.1.2 Land Use and Site Description 2 -1 2.2 Site History 2 -1 2.3 Future Site Use 2 -2 Section 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations 3.1 Physical Subsurface Conditions 3 -1 3.2 Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination 3 -1 3.2.1 Phase 1 ESA (Environmental Associates, Inc.) 3 -1 3.2.2 Phase 2 ESA (Environmental Associates, Inc.) 3 -2 3.2.3 Phase 2 Supplemental Investigation (Army Corps of Engineers) 3 -3 3.2.4 Phase 2 Site Reconnaissance and Assessment (CDM) 3 -3 Section 4 Contaminants of Concern for Cleanup Actions 4.1 Contaminants of Concern in Soil 4-1 4.2 Contaminants of Concern in Groundwater 4-2 Section 5 Proposed Cleanup Levels and Points of Compliance 5.1 Introduction 5 -1 5.2 Soil Cleanup Level and Point of Compliance 5 -1 Section 6 Summary of Remedial Alternatives 6.1 Alternative 1- Physical Soil Removal 6 -1 6.2 Alternative 2 - Onsite Treatment with Physical Removal 6 -1 Section 7 Selected Cleanup Action 7.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative 7 -1 7.2 Permitting 7 -2 7.3 Compliance with State and Federal Laws 7 -2 7.4 Compliance Monitoring 7 -2 7.4.1 Performance Monitoring 7 -2 7.4.2 Protection Monitoring 7 -3 7.4.3. Confirmation Monitoring 7 -3 7.5 Maintenance 7 -3 CDM 111 MC cord WasteWorth Wtrtd. weir CAPNorth Wards wait CAP Updated 101-04.doc Section 8 Justification and Determinations 8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 8 -1 8.2 Compliance with Cleanup Levels 8 -1 8.3 Compliance with State and Federal Laws 8 -1 8.4 Compliance Monitoring 8 -1 8.5 Restoration Time Frame 8 -1 8.6 Long -Term Effectiveness 8 -1 8.7 Short -Term Effectiveness 8 -1 8.8 Implementability 8 -2 8.9 Cost 8 -2 8.10 Cost Benefit Analysis 8 -2 8.11 Public Participation 8 -2 Section 9 Documentation and Reporting 9 - Section 10 References 10 -1 Distribution Tables Figures Appendices Appendix A Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix B Project Health and Safety Plan P: KC Solid Wa teWorth Wirers war CAPMbM Wills Weir CAP updated 1O-1-04.doc Contents E t CDM Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Previous Investigation Exploration Locations Figure 3 Exploration Locations, CDM, 2004 PVCC :did W aMW aM Winds Weir CAP Worth Winds Wet CAP Updated 10.1 d1.doa Analytical Summary Soil — Environmental Associates, Inc. May 2001 Investigation Analytical Summary Groundwater — Environmental Associates, Inc. May 2001 Investigation Analytical Summary Soil — Army Corps of Engineers June 2003 Investigation Analytical Summary Soil — CDM April 2004 Investigation Analytical Summary - Soil Evaluated as Sediment, CDM April 2004 Investigation Analytical Summary Groundwater — CDM April 2004 Investigation Comparison of Cleanup Levels and Drinking -Water Standards Summary of ARARs v COM Section 1 Introduction This cleanup action plan (CAP) has been prepared to document cleanup actions planned to address petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soil at the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration site located at 11025 Pacific Highway South in Tukwila, Washington (parcel tax identification numbers 04230499114 and 04230499118). This voluntary cleanup action is being performed in compliance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Chapter 173 -340. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) prepared this CAP on behalf of the property owner, King County (the County). CDM's work was conducted under Work Order No. 6 to Contract No. E23023E. Environmental investigations were completed for the site in 2001, 2003, and 2004 to assist in the County's acquisition of the property and to support preparation of the CAP. These investigations have provided a thorough description of the site and nature and extent of contamination. Cleanup actions are required to comply with MTCA and support the County's redevelopment of the site. The objectives of this CAP are to: (1) describe the site, including a summary of its history and the nature and extent of contamination; (2) determine site specific cleanup levels and points of compliance; (3) summarize the remedial alternatives; and (4) identify and describe a preferred alternative for site remediation. PYCC Solid WaldoWorth Wind's Weir CAPWonh W. Weir CAP Updalad 15104.doo 1 -1 z. ..'` .: `_., North Wind`s Weir` S te`llistory _.. y. tt S, y , -.�, Year z '` r D. V, ^r � G eneral -site aLaiiL±Use ;, . r 1 i t fi r,.. 9.C7r r S` '°+� hd ter r Notes:. 1908 Residential/ Agricultural? First residence built. 1936 Agricultural/ Residential First available aerial photo (shows the residence). 1943 Residential/ Agricultural? Second residence built. Section 2 Site Setting and Background 2.1 Site Location and Description 2.1.1 Location The site is located on the east bank of the Duwamish River approximately 3/ mile upstream of the southern terminus of the Duwamish Waterway (Turning Basin No. 2) (see Figure 1). The site is bordered by a City of Seattle high- voltage power line right -of- way to the north, South 112th Street to the south, commercial /industrial property to the east, and the Duwamish River to the west. Although the address of the property is 11025 Pacific Highway South, the site is located approximately 1 block to the west of Pacific Highway South, in the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, and Range 4 East of the Seattle South U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map. Latitude and longitude for the site are 47.486 and 122.303, respectively. 2.1.2 Land Use and Site Description The 2.59 -acre property is currently a vacant lot with an unpaved surface. A security fence borders the site along 112th Street and on the east side. There are no structures present, but there are many large trees and areas with thick ground cover. There are three concrete foundations from structures previously located on the site. Small soil stockpiles and pieces of concrete are also present in several areas. The adjoining property to the east is lower in elevation than the site. An approximately 5 -foot- high retaining wall (directly below the fence) separates the two properties. The site is relatively flat as shown on Figure 2. The land surface is highest in the middle of the property (20 feet above sea level), and slopes gently downward to the east and west. A steep bank borders the river. 2.2 Site History The land use history for the site, based on a Phase 1 ESA and an aerial photo review, is presented below. P1KC Solid W..t.`JJo h WUdd. WI* CARNonh Wind's Wilk CAP Updelad 1O104.doe 2 -1 orth Wind's W eir "Site History. s� .' $ 7 G eneral Si s 1 � Lan U ,� Z 'o F� � X j4 y 'S . �„• �? { a 1 1946 Residential New residence seen on SW portion, deposit of sand bar on western side. 1956 Commercial/ Industrial/ Residential Warehouse and an adjacent building are located at center of site, cylindrical objects nearby. New structure at northeast corner. 1960 Commercial/ Industrial/ Residential Unpaved roads around site are more defined, fence constructed around site. 1969 Commercial/ Industrial/ Residential Western edge of property extended 15 -20 feet with fill. Parked vehicles and more storage onsite. 1971 Commercial/ Industrial Residences removed. 1974 Commercial/ Industrial Boulevard Excavating (1970- 1985). Significantly more parked cars and storage of construction materials onsite. 1980, 1985 Commercial/ Industrial New structure on southwest portion of site, additions to warehouse. 1990 Vacant All structures on the site have been removed. No parked cars. One trailer. 1995 Vehicle Storage Dozens of parked cars. 1999 Vehicle Storage Your Operational Pallet Service (1996 -). Several storage trailers are present. 2000 Vacant No parked cars, two trailers are present in east - central area of site. 2002 Vacant Site is vacant with more developed ground cover. 2.3 Future Site Use We understand the County has acquired the property for a salmon restoration project that will generate 2 acres of intertidal habitat aiding salmonid (Onchorhyncus) transition to saltwater. The project is a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and several local governments. Proposed construction activities at the North Wind's Weir site indude soil excavation to allow Duwamish River water to flow freely in and out of a constructed slough with tidal fluctuations, and enhancement and stabilization of habitat by planting typical emergent vegetation, native trees, and shrubs, and placement of woody debris. MC Solid W esl :Worth Winds Weir CAPWonh Winds Mr CAP Updated 10.tO4.doc Section 2 r Site Setting and Background 2 -2 t t CDM Section 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations 3.1 Physical Subsurface Conditions The North Wind's Weir site is located in the Duwamish River Valley. Fine- grained alluvial soils typically underlie the valley. However, bedrock outcrops at several nearby locations, including in the Duwamish River channel adjacent to the site. A regional geologic map describes the small outcrop, which is particularly noticeable during low tides, as "Sedimentary rocks of the middle Eocene age. Conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale; partly of marine origin. Consists chiefly of volcanic rock fragments." (Waldron et al., 1962). A geologic log from a deep soil boring completed by Shannon & Wilson in the 112th Street right -of -way approximately 300 feet east of the site indicates bedrock is present at 118 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies website). Alluvial soils underlie the site; however, the site was filled in the early part of the 20th Century to accommodate development and was extended an additional 15 to 20 feet to the west toward the Duwamish River in the 1960s. The source of the site fill is unknown. During drilling conducted by CDM in April 2004, concrete and metal debris were encountered as deep as 11 feet bgs. Previous site investigation work indicates the property is underlain with approximately 17 feet of fill, below which are native alluvial soils. The alluvium below the site and throughout the Duwamish Valley is described as "Alluvium. Chiefly sand and silt but includes clay and peat" (Waldron et al., 1962). Bedrock was not encountered to the 22 -foot maximum depth of exploration. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 15 feet bgs during subsurface investigations at the site. The groundwater is believed to be in hydraulic connection with the Duwamish River. The inferred direction of groundwater flow below the site is west - northwest toward the Duwamish River. 3.2 Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination 3.2.1 Phase 1 ESA (Environmental Associates, Inc.) A Phase 1 ESA for the property was conducted by Environmental Associates, Inc. (EAI) in April 2001. The EAI Phase 1 reports that Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) records showed six underground storage tanks (USTs) containing diesel and unleaded gasoline were removed from the site in 1988. This was also confirmed by an interview with a previous site tenant, although the sized installation date of the tanks are unknown. No information concerning soil testing during tank removal was obtained. Aerial photos revealed that the site was used as an automobile salvage yard from approximately the early 1970s to at least the mid- 1990s, and an interview suggested there were releases of automotive fluids to the soil during that time period. The auto salvaging operation is believed to have been concentrated in the northern area of the site. There was one unconfirmed sampling event in which oil- contaminated soil MC Solid W..1rNorth Wind. Wok CAP'No. h Wind. War CAP lAzialid 10.1-04.doe 3 -1 Section 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations was discovered east of a former warehouse building at 3 feet bgs. The foundation of the building is still present on the site. Aerial photos also showed that the western edge of the property was extended with fill 15 to 20 feet toward the Duwamish River sometime in the 1960s. The results of the April 2001 Phase 1 ESA identified the following potential sources of contamination on the property: • The six diesel and unleaded gasoline USTs formerly located in the west - central area of the site. • Spills of automotive fluids associated the former automotive salvage operation. No off -site sources of contamination were identified in the Phase I that could likely have impacted the site. CDM's 2004 site and vicinity reconnaissance, aerial photo review, and Ecology file review--discussed in Section 3.2.4 confirmed that the conclusions from the 2001 ESA are still valid. 3.2.2 Phase 2 ESA (Environmental Associates, Inc.) EAI conducted a Phase 2 ESA on May 17, 2001 to investigate potential impacts from the removed USTs and automotive salvage yard operations. The investigation included six soil borings completed to depths ranging from 16 to 20 feet bgs using direct -push technology (DPT). The locations of the borings, designated B-1 through B-6, and their locations are shown on Figure 2. Soils encountered during drilling consisted primarily of sand and silty sand. Two of the borings encountered interlayered silt; one boring was terminated in coarse - grained gravel. Groundwater was encountered between 14 and 19 feet bgs. The inferred groundwater flow direction was presented as being to the west - northwest toward the Duwamish River. EAI's Phase 2 ESA included analytical testing of soil and groundwater samples. Soil samples were analyzed for gasoline -, diesel -, and motor oil -range TPH; gasoline constituents benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX); selected metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead); and PAHs. Borings B and B showed field evidence (noticeable odors) of petroleum hydrocarbons. Gasoline -, diesel -, and motor oil -range TPH was detected at relatively low concentrations in shallow soils samples (3 to 4 feet bgs) in Brings B-1, B-3, and B-5. Trace gasoline constituents ( ethylbenzene and /or xylenes) were also detected at B-1 and B-3. Eight samples were submitted for PAH analysis from various depth horizons. The only detection was naphthalene in a sample collected at 14 feet bgs in B-3. None of the detected compounds exceeded Method A cleanup levels. Groundwater samples were obtained from five of the DPT borings. The water samples were analyzed for gasoline -, diesel -, and motor oil -range TPH; gasoline constituents; and selected metals. There was a detection of arsenic at 9.42 micrograms per liter (pg /L) in the water sample from Boring B6 that exceeded the Method A cleanup level of 5 ig /L. Diesel -range hydrocarbons were detected in four of five groundwater samples, and oil -range hydrocarbons were detected in one of five groundwater PAC Solid WastaWorth Wkda Ww CAPNbtth Wind's Weir CAP Updated 141-04.doo CDM Section 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations samples —all at concentrations well below Method A cleanup levels. The analytical results from the May 2001 investigation are summarized in Table 1 (soil) and Table 2 (groundwater). 3.2.3 Phase 2 Supplemental Investigation (Army Corps of Engineers) The USACE investigation was conducted on June 13, 2003 to provide supplemental information on impacts to shallow soil. The investigation included eight test pits excavated to about 5 feet bgs. Locations of the test pits, designated 03-BH -101 through 03-BH -108, are shown on Figure 2. No geologic logs of the test pits were available for review. The USACE investigation included analytical testing of soil samples from three of the eight test pits that contained field evidence (noticeable odors) of petroleum hydrocarbons. The three test pits— 03-BH -103, 03-BH -107, and 03- BH- 108 —were all located in the northem area of the site. Soil samples were analyzed for gasoline -, diesel -, and motor oil -range TPH; gasoline constituents benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE); metals; PAHs; and PCBs. TPH (primarily diesel- and motor oil -range) was detected in all three test pits. There was one detection of oil -range TPH above the Method A cleanup level in test pit 03-BH -108. There were detections of PAHs, PCBs, and several metals; however, none exceeded their respective Method A cleanup level. The analytical results from USACE's June 2003 investigation are summarized in Table 3. 3.2.4 Phase 2 Site Reconnaissance and Assessment (CDM) CDM performed a site reconnaissance in April 2004 to update site and area conditions. Four monitoring wells were noted east of the site that were not discussed in the Phase I ESA (Environmental Associates, Inc. 2001a) in the inferred hydraulic upgradient area from the North Wind's Weir site. One older - appearing monitoring well is located on the north side of South 112th Street (about 300 feet from the southeast corner of the site). Three new- appearing monitoring wells were noted at the comer of South 112th Street and Pacific Highway South (about 600 feet from the southeast corner of the site). The Phase I ESA identified this property as a former Shell service station. CDM requested Department of Ecology files for the site and surrounding properties; none were forthcoming. It is likely the monitoring wells at the corner of South 112th Street and Pacific Highway South were installed due to the past use of the comer as a service station. The purpose of the older monitoring well on the north side of 112th Street is unknown. CDM's Phase 2 ESA was also conducted in April 2004 to provide supplemental information on soil and groundwater conditions. A total of 14 borings were drilled to depths ranging from 3.5 to 22 feet bgs using a hollow -stem auger drill. Boring locations are shown on Figure 3. Borings were designated sequentially with the pre -fix A (A -1, A -2, etc.). The two borings completed as groundwater monitoring wells were given the pre -fix MWA (MWA -4 and MWA -9, specifically). P.1KC Solid Waat.Wonh Winch Wai CAPVJonh wind. War CAP Updated 10.1 3 -3 Soil encountered in the borings generally consisted of fine- grained silty sand and sand. Silt layers up to 13 feet thick were encountered in four of the 14 borings. Auger refusal at several locations indicates debris is present in the fill in the northern comer of the site near the Duwamish River and in the area of the former USTs. Soil and water samples collected during the investigation were submitted to OnSite Environmental Inc. (OnSite) in Redmond, Washington for analytical testing of one or more of the following: diesel- and oil -range TPH, PAHs, PCBs, and lead. Following is a discussion of the three media evaluated in the CDM investigation. Soil Laboratory results for testing performed on soil samples are presented in Table 4. Lead was detected in shallow-soil (approximately 3 feet bgs) at three of the four sample locations. The concentrations (ranging from 7.1 to 51 mg /kg) did not exceed the Method A Cleanup Level of 250 mg /kg or the 100 mg /kg concentration that would prompt analysis by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure if the soil were evaluated for off -site disposal. Soil representing the approximate future land surface after construction of the proposed slough (approximately 4 to 6 feet bgs) showed detectable TPH at three locations (A -1, A -2, and A -3, located along the northern property border). The detections ranged from 69 to 660 mg /kg, all below the Method A cleanup level of 2,000 mg /kg. The carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (cPAH) soil sample results were normalized to a Toxicity Equivalent Factor (TEF). Each cPAH has a specific TEF, and the sum of the TEF- adjusted cPAHs equals theToxic Equivalent (TEQ) as outlined in WAC 173 -340- 708(8). Data for cPAHs were adjusted with the TEF only when the concentration in the sample was above the method detection limit. PAHs were detected at two of three locations tested that represent the future land surface after construction of the proposed slough. The normalized cPAHS were just above the 0.1 mg /kg Method A cleanup level at one location (0.105 mg /kg at A -3). Soil in the interior of the site that would be excavated as part of the planned restoration project (A -7, A -8c, MWA -9, and A -10b) was sampled at depth horizons representing approximately 8 and 14 feet bgs. The only location with detectable TPH was Boring A -7, located near the bank of the Duwamish River, which showed a lube oil concentration of 1,000 mg /kg at 8 feet bgs. This detection does not exceed the 2,000 mg /kg Method A cleanup level. A soil sample from 12.5 feet bgs at Boring A -7 showed no detectable TPH. Samples results for the three locations analyzed for PAHs showed no Method A exceedances. PCBs were detected at one of the two sample locations (A -7 at 8 feet bgs); however, the concentration of 0.089 mg /kg did not exceed the 1 mg /kg Method A cleanup level. Soil Evaluated as Sediment Soil samples were obtained from approximately 20 feet bgs at A -8c and MWA -9 for evaluation as sediment. Laboratory results for soil samples evaluated as sediment are presented in Table 5. The analytical data were organic - carbon normalized per the P■CC Solid w.it.Nlorth Wind'. weir CAR North wind'. weir CAP Updated 10.1.04.doc Section 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations 3 -4 P.VCC Solid W..1dNordn wind. weir GWNlorth Wind. W.v CAP Updated 10.1.04 doe Section 3 Summary of Previous Environmental Investigations Sediment Management Standards (SMS), Chapter 173 -204 WAC. The TOC concentrations were 477 mg /kg at A -8c and 667 mg /kg at MWA -9. There were no detected PAHs or PCBs. The detection limit concentrations (dry weight basis) were normalized. The resulting normalized data suggests an exceedance in the SMS for two of the PAHs as well as the PCBs. The very low organic carbon in the soil suggests the dry weight basis data (all non - detect) are more appropriate for comparison to the SMS. Chromium, copper, and lead were detected in both samples analyzed at concentrations well below the SMS. Groundwater Groundwater samples were collected from temporary monitoring wells placed in the hollow -stem augers at A -lb, A -2, A -3, A -5, and A-6. A water sample was also collected from the permanently installed monitoring well MWA -4. The water samples were collected to assess the quality of groundwater entering the site perimeter from adjacent properties. The only water sample that exhibited field evidence of contamination was obtained from A -2, where the sample had a slight hydrocarbon -like odor and sheen. Each water sample was analyzed for diesel- and oil -range TPH by Northwest Method NWTPH -Dx. The water samples obtained at A -3 and A -5 were also analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B and PAHs by EPA Method 8270C /SlVI. Laboratory results for testing performed on water samples are presented in Table 6. No diesel- or oil -range TPH were detected in any of the water samples. Diesel- and oil - range TPH were identified at concentrations greater than the detection limit in the EAI May 2001 investigation (see Table 2). This is due to differing detection limits between the two laboratories utilized (Friedman & Bruya, Inc. by EAI and OnSite by CDM). The higher detection limits used by OnSite (260 µg /L for diesel and 420 µg /L for lube oil) are consistent with the suggested laboratory method reporting limits and are below the 500 itg /L Method A cleanup level for diesel- and oil -range TPH. Water samples at A - 3 and A - 5 were also tested for PAHs and VOCs. There were low detections of PAHs in each sample. In Boring A -3, 2- Methylnaphthalene and 1- Methylnaphthalene were present at a combined concentration of 0.63 micrograms per liter (pg /L), well below the Method A Cleanup Level for total Naphthalenes of 160 ig /L. Acenaphthene was detected in Boring A -5 at 0.2 lig /L. Acenaphthene does not have a Method A cleanup level; however, the concentration is below the 960 pg /L potable groundwater cleanup level calculated in Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculation under MTCA Cleanup Regulation (CLARC) by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology, 2001b). None of the cPAHs were present at or above the method detection limit. The only detected VOC was tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene or PCE) in A -5 at a concentration of 0.7 pg /L —well below the 5 pg /L Method A cleanup level. Section 4 Contaminants of Concern for Cleanup Actions The contaminants of concern (COC) include chemicals that have been found in soil and /or groundwater that exceed the MTCA Method A cleanup level. The selection of COC is a stepwise process that evaluates and organizes site data to identify chemicals that may pose risks to human health and the environment. COC selection may reduce the number of chemicals that are considered during development of cleanup alternatives, so that risk management and remedial design decisions may focus on specific chemicals that have the potential to pose significant risk. COC screening criteria was accomplished based on MTCA guidelines (173 -340 -708). Each media was screened using the following criteria in the order listed. ■ Evaluation of data quality and its effect on data usability. • Frequency of detection. • Comparison to chemical- specific applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). ■ Evaluation of cross -media concerns and re- evaluation of ARARs. 4.1 Contaminants of Concern in Soil Table 7 presents a summary of compounds detected in site soil including the maximum concentration detected, number of detections, and number of samples analyzed. These values are then compared against Method A cleanup levels and Method B formula values provided in the MTCA Cleanup levels and Risk Calculations (CLARC) tables. In addition, ecological indicator soil concentrations from Table 749 -3 in MTCA are provided for compounds that have values. Nineteen compounds were detected, most at relatively low concentrations. With respect to the potential for direct exposure, Ecology's Guidance on Sampling and Data Analysis Methods (1995) Section A2.2 states that the concentrations of all hazardous substances in each soil sample should be compared directly with cleanup levels. The locations of samples that exceed one or more cleanup levels are used to delineate areas requiring a decision on the need for remediation. For protection of groundwater, Section A3.3.2.4 of the guidance states that Method A or Method B soil cleanup levels can be used. Diesel- and oil -range TPH and PAHs (carcinogenic mixture) are the only compounds retained as COC in soil. TPH is a contaminant of concern due to its frequency of detection and relatively high concentrations. About half of the sampled analyzed contained diesel- and oil -range TPH and one sample exceeded the Method A cleanup P:YCC sold WasteWorth wine. Welt CAP'No th W. WW CAP Updated 10.14:14. dee 4 -1 Section 4 Contaminants of Concem for Cleanup Actions level. PAHs are a COC due to their toxicity. One sample exceeded the Method A cleanup level for the carcinogenic mixture of PAHs. The metals lead and chromium exceeded their respective ecological indicator soil concentrations. Specifically, lead exceeded the criteria for plants and chromium exceeded the criteria for plants and soil biota. The highest lead concentrations were found in near surface soil. The maximum lead detection of 136 mg /kg appears to be localized and not representative of lead concentrations in near - surface soil across the site. The lead concentrations at five other near - surface locations ranged from less than 6 to 51 mg /kg. Lead concentrations appear to decrease with depth, with concentrations of less than 2 mg /kg at 12 to 16 feet bgs. Since the proposed cleanup action will result in the removal of near surface soil from the site, lead was eliminated as a COC. Chromium found in all four samples analyzed (average of 29.6 mg /kg) and is likely reflective of background concentrations (Ecology, 1994). The remaining detected compounds (several metals and non - carcinogenic PAHs as well as PCBs) were eliminated as COC because of their low concentrations and non- exceedance of any cleanup criteria. 4.2 Contaminants of Concern in Groundwater Diesel- and oil -range TPH, several PAH compounds, tetrachloroethene, chromium, and arsenic were detected in groundwater. Table 7 presents a summary of contaminants detected in groundwater including the maximum concentration detected, number of detections, and number of samples analyzed. Federal drinking -water standards (maximum contaminant levels [MCL]) and the State surface water criteria also are included in Table 7. All of these substances have been eliminated from consideration as COC in groundwater. The only substance that showed a cleanup criteria exceedance was arsenic in one sample. The 9.42 µg /L detection exceeds the 5 µg /L Method A cleanup level. This concentration is believed to be within the range of natural background concentrations found in the Duwamish Valley. Review of Washington's surface water quality standards indicates groundwater seepage along the perimeter of the slough would not contain hazardous substances at concentrations detrimental to the Duwamish River (Ecology, 1997). PAKC Solid WastetNa Winds Weir CAPJbnh Wills Weir CAP Updated 141-0t.doe 4 -2 E i.. 1 • CDM Section 5 Proposed Cleanup Levels and Points of Compliance 5.1 Introduction MTCA requires that cleanup levels be identified for hazardous substances present at a site. Cleanup levels are defined as the concentration of each hazardous substance that is protective of human health and the environment. In addition, MTCA requires determining the location(s) on the site where the cleanup levels are to be attained to be protective of human health and the environment. These locations are termed points of compliance. The points of compliance are media and exposure route specific. Appropriate cleanup levels and points of compliance for the site were determined by: • Identifying potential human and ecological receptors through characterization of contaminant transport and potential receptor exposure pathways. • Compiling relevant State and Federal ARARs. • Assessing the site location and features of the planned redevelopment. MTCA provides three basic methods for establishing cleanup levels: Method A, Method B, and Method C. Method A is designed for sites undergoing routine cleanup actions and at sites that involve relatively few hazardous substances [WAC 173-340 - 700(3)(a)]. Method B is applicable to all sites and is considered the standard method for determining cleanup levels. Method B uses risk -based formulas with conservative exposure assumptions. Method C is a conditional method for determining cleanup levels. This method also uses risk -based formulas, but is based on industrial exposure scenarios. Method A was used to establish cleanup levels at this site because the circumstances of site contamination fit the criteria for using this method. The site is relatively simple in that there are two primary contaminant of concern, TPH (diesel- and oil -range) and PAHs, for which Method A cleanup levels for unrestricted land uses have been established. 5.2 Soil Cleanup Level and Point of Compliance The Method A cleanup level for diesel- and oil -range TPH in soil is 2,000 mg /kg, respectively. The Method A cleanup level for PAHs (carcinogenic mixture) is 0.1 mg /kg. The diesel and oil (heavy oils) cleanup levels are based on preventing the accumulation of free product on the groundwater, as described in WAC 173 -340- 747(10). The 0.1 mg /kg cleanup level for carcinogenic PAH mixtures is based on direct contact using the toxicity equivalency methodology in WAC 173 - 340 - 708(8). MTCA specifies that the point of compliance for soil cleanup based on protection of groundwater is throughout the site [WAC 173 - 340 - 740(6)]. The point of compliance for PVC Solid W..1.WoM Winds Weir CAP1Noit WNB. Weir CAP WA.Ied 10.144.doc 5 -1 Section 5 " Cleanup Levels and Points of Compliance direct contact (human exposure) is the throughout the site from the ground surface to 15 feet below the ground surface: The point of compliance for protection of groundwater was chosen after considering the proposed site redevelopment goal of creating habitat for juvenile salmon. PAKC sad W.ei.Wo th W. Weir CAP•mMn Winds Weir CAP Upd.l.d 104 O..dce 5 -2 t Section 6 Summary of Remedial Alternatives MTCA requires that all cleanup actions protect human health and the environment, comply with cleanup standards, comply with applicable State and Federal laws, and provide for compliance monitoring. In addition, the cleanup action conducted must use permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable, provide for reasonable restoration time frame, and consider public concerns during public comment. The proposed redevelopment of the North Wind's Weir site limits the remedial alternatives available. Most, if not all, of the petroleum- contaminated soil will be excavated and removed form the site as part of the planned redevelopment. As such, alternatives such as institutional controls are not feasible. Two remedial alternatives were considered for the North Wind's Weir site; source removal (physical removal) and onsite soil treatment followed by source removal. 6.1 Alternative 1— Physical Soil Removal Alternative 1 involves excavating soil containing concentrations of COC above applicable MTCA Method A cleanup levels. However, the planned salmon restoration project will remove art estimated 65,000 cubic yards of soil. This soil mass will likely . include virtually all hydrocarbon - impacted soil. As such, soil with COC concentrations ranging from above Method A cleanup levels down to the laboratory detection limit will need to be managed so that construction can commence. Based on the subsurface investigations conducted at the site, the horizontal and vertical extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination has been sufficiently characterized to estimate the limits of excavation. The excavated soil would be trucked to end -use locations based on the concentration of TPH in the soil as described in Section 7. It is not anticipated that contaminated soil removal will extend to the water table at approximately 15 feet bgs, therefore, no contingency for excavation water management is warranted. Because most, if not all, of the soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons will be removed and transported off site as part of the planned redevelopment, the remediation cost is the incremental cost between clean fill end use and the additional project cost due to the presence of the petroleum contamination. The incremental cost range for Alternative 1 was estimated to be $370,000 to $440,000. 6.2 Alternative 2 — Onsite Treatment with Physical Removal Alternative 2 includes physical removal, the same as for Alternative 1. In addition, onsite treatment processes to enhance the biological degradation or chemical destruction of the TPH compounds would be implemented. Potential onsite technologies for treatment of TPH in vadose zone soil indude in situ bioremediation, ex situ bioremediation, and in situ chemical oxidation. In situ bioremediation involves injection and /or extraction of air to promote aerobic biodegradation of TPH. Alternatively, water containing nutrients and oxygen can be flushed through CDIVI 6 -1 MC Solid WaebNbrN Wind. Wok CARNo th WW1 W. CAP Updated 10.143I.doc Section 6 Summary of Remedial Altematives contaminated soil. Ex situ bioremediation involves excavation of soil followed by treatment via use of tilling or biopiles to promote biodegradation. Tilling, also known as land farming, involves placement of soil in lifts, addition of moisture and nutrients, and periodic tilling to promote aerobic conditions. Biopiles involve placement of soil with amendments into piles with integral air piping to allow maintenance of aerobic conditions and biodegradation. Amendments include moisture, nutrients, and sometimes bulking agents in the case of low permeability soils. In situ and ex situ bioremediation require more time to treat heavier hydrocarbons than lighter hydrocarbons. Thus the diesel- and oil -range hydrocarbons present at the North Wind's Weir site may require a significant amount of time to be reduced to a concentration that would result in a less expensive off site end use handling cost. For this reason, there is appreciable risk that bioremediation would not be consistent with site redevelopment schedules. Chemical oxidation involves injection of chemical oxidants including ozone gas, Fenton's reagent (hydrogen peroxide and catalyzed iron), or permanganate. These chemical oxidants oxidize TPH to carbon dioxide and water. Chemical oxidation is typically expensive and is unlikely to meet the maximum incremental cost requirement discussed below. Both bioremediation and chemical oxidation require treatability studies to insure applicability to the site. As discussed in Section 7, excavated soil containing less than 200 mg /kg of TPH (low concentration soil) can likely be handled differently, and at a lesser cost, than soil containing greater than 200 mg /kg. Total cost is estimated at $17 per ton to transport and dispose of the less than 200 mg /kg soil. Excavated soil containing greater than 200 mg /kg TPH (high concentration soil) will require thermal treatment or disposal in a subtitle D facility at a total cost of $23.50 to $38 per ton including transportation. Onsite treatment of soil with greater than 200 mg /kg TPH prior to transport off site has the potential to allow for the reduced lower level end use price. The incremental cost between low and high concentration soil is estimated to range from $6.5 to $21 per ton. In order to realize an overall cost savings, the technology cost of onsite treatment must be less than $6.50 to $21 per ton. Based on this brief evaluation, excavation followed by off site treatment or disposal is recommended for soil containing greater than 200 mg /kg TPH. P:XC Solid WastelNath Wind's Weir CAPWorth Wind's Weir CAP Updated 101-04.0oc 6 -2 or- c E Section 7 Selected Cleanup Action 7.1 Description of the Preferred Alternative Alternative 1, physical soil removal, is the preferred remedial alternative. During soil excavation a field inspector will identify impacted versus non - impacted soil. The impacted soil will be further segregated between higher or lower hydrocarbon concentrations. The dividing point between higher and lower would be 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg) for diesel - and oil -range TPH. The dividing point between lower and non - impacted (clean) would be the laboratory method reporting limit. The typical reporting limits for diesel- and oil -range TPH are 25 and 50 mg /kg, respectively. A site mobile laboratory could be used to facilitate the soil segregation. Subsequent options for handling and disposal of the Higher Level Soil (containing diesel- or oil -range TPH greater than 200 mg /kg) would be transported for thermal treatment or disposal in a subtitle D facility such as Waste Management, Incorporated's (WMI) landfill in Oregon, Rabanco's Klickitat landfill, Systec (located at the Lafarge facility in Seattle) for cement manufacturing reuse, Rinker facility in Everett for thermal treatment and reuse as fill in their abandoned gravel pit, or TPS facility in Tacoma for thermal treatment and reuse as fill. Lower Level Soil contains diesel- or oil -range TPH above the laboratory method reporting limit and but not greater than 200 mg /kg. The only known cost effective handling option for this soil is transport to the Rinker facility in Everett for reuse as fill in their abandoned gravel pit. Clean soil contains no detectable TPH. Specific details of the remedial design will be developed by King County. Elements of the site remediation phase indude: Monitoring well abandonment: prior to beginning soil removal activities, the two monitoring wells on the property (MWA -4 and MWA -9) may be decommissioned in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells, WAC 173 - 160 -151, and RCW, Chapter 18.104.040, Water Well Construction. Well abandonment would be performed by filling the casing from the bottom with grout or bentonite in accordance with WAC 173 -160 -560. Well abandonment would be supervised by a driller licensed in the State of Washington and the driller would submit all required documentation on the well abandonment to Ecology. Alternatively, the wells may be retained by carefully excavating around the well and re- installing a surface monument. At least 3 feet of surface seal (cement /bentonite) should be maintained. Site preparation: Concrete slabs will be removed for offsite recycling. Vegetation on the property will be removed and properly disposed of or composted if hauled off site. DM 7 -1 PKC Solid W.einNbnhwind. Weir CANNo h Wind. weir CAP Updated IO.t-04.dec Section 7 Selected-Cleanup Action Erosion control: During the soil removal action, best management practices (BMPs) will be employed. These include installation of silt -fence erosion barriers around the site perimeter, installation of silt traps in nearby catch basins, and construction of quarry spall construction entrances to excavation areas. Source removal: The source removal action includes excavation and trucking off site of all soil planned for removal as part of the proposed redevelopment containing diesel - and oil -range TPH above the laboratory detection limit. Compliance monitoring: Compliance monitoring includes health and safety monitoring and soil sampling and analysis performed in accordance with the project Health and Safety Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), respectively. Site restoration: If construction is not performed concurrently with site remediation, then site grading and erosion control measures will be implemented. 7.2 Permitting The proposed environmental cleanup requires completion and approval of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist associated with project permitting through the City of Tukwila. Required permits include grade and fill and hauling. Other permits may also be required. King County will procure all necessary project permits. 7.3 Compliance with State and Federal Laws According to MTCA, cleanup actions must comply with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. In addition, MTCA allows advisories, guidelines, proposed standards, and regulations that are not directly applicable or relevant and appropriate, to be considered when selecting cleanup action. ARARs and other information to be considered regarding site cleanup are presented in Table 8. 7.4 Compliance Monitoring MTCA (WAC 173 -340 -410) specifies compliance monitoring requirements for cleanup actions. Compliance monitoring includes three monitoring elements: performance, protection, and confirmation as described below. 7.4.1 Performance Monitoring Performance monitoring confirms that cleanup actions are achieving the desired results. For this project, performance monitoring will consist of intermittently collecting samples from excavated soil for analytical testing of diesel- and oil -range TPH. A project SAP describing performance monitoring is included as Appendix A. 7.4.2 Protection Monitoring Protection monitoring confirms that human health and the environment are adequately protected during site cleanup activities. Routine protection monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the site Health and Safety Plan during soil excavation P:V(C Solid W W.Worlh Wind's Weir CAP1•iorth Wind's Weir CAP Updated •01-04.doe 7 -2 r 1 1 CnM P.YCC said W.u4Nionh wild. Ww CAP■ortlh Wird, Weer CAP UPd.ld 101 01.dx Section 7 Selected Cleanup Action (e.g., field screening for VOCs in worker breathing zone during soil excavation). A project specific Health and Safety Plan is included as Appendix B. 7.4.3 Confirmation Monitoring Confirmational monitoring will confirm the long -term effectiveness of the cleanup once performance monitoring indicates desired COC concentrations have been attained. Confirmational monitoring will consist of collecting soil samples of soil remaining in- place to document COC concentrations. Confirmational monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the SAP (Appendix A). 7.5 Maintenance No treatment system installation or institutional controls are anticipated associated with the cleanup action; therefore no maintenance items are required. During remediation, construction BMPs will be implemented to mitigate site erosion. If site redevelopment does not occur concurrently with the cleanup action, then long -term erosion control measures will be required which will necessitate ongoing maintenance. 7 -3 CDM Section 8 Justification and Determinations Alternative 1 addresses remaining contamination issues and meets the substantative requirements of MTCA for protecting human health and the environment. Also, in conjunction with implementing Alternative 1, site redevelopment will result in removal of most, if not all, hydrocarbon - impacted soils allowing for an enhanced environment for salmon restoration. 8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Alternative 1 provides good overall protection of human health and the environment because contaminants on the site are addressed with respect to potential human and environmental receptors. 8.2 Compliance with Cleanup Levels Alternative 1 provides compliance with cleanup levels because contaminants on the site in excess of cleanup levels are removed. 8.3 Compliance with State and Federal Laws MTCA, the primary ARAR for this site, will be met with Alternative 1. Other ARARs, such as SEPA review and minimum standards for construction of wells and will be adhered to during implementation of specific tasks. 8.4 Compliance Monitoring Requirements for compliance monitoring will be met under Alternative 1 and includes performance, protection, and confirmation monitoring. All work will be conducted in accordance with the project SAP and Health and Safety Plan. 8.5 Restoration Time Frame Alternative 1 provides for the most expedited time frame available for remediation of the site. 8.6 Long -Term Effectiveness The overall reliability and certainty of success is high with Alternative 1. Most, if not all, hydrocarbon - impacted soils would be removed from the site in a relatively short time period. 8.7 Short -Term Effectiveness Workers would face short-term risks during implementation. These risks would be minimized by staffing with properly trained personnel and implementing the site Health and Safety Plan. P1KC Solid W..l.■brdl Winds Wi CAPOlodh Wind. Woo CAP Upd.l.d 101-04.doe 8 -1 8.8 Implementability All technologies under Alternative 1 are well known and have been utilized at numerous other cleanup sites. Numerous contractors offer the equipment and expertise to implement Alternative 1. 8.9 Cost The estimated incremental cost for Alternative 1 is $370,000 to $440,000. The cost for Alternative 2 was not evaluated in detail because treatability studies would be necessary to assess effectiveness. 8.10 Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative 1 was chosen as the preferred alternative over Alternative 2. It is the higher preferred alternative consistent with WAC 173 -340 -360. Therefore, a cost- benefit analysis was not conducted. 8.11 Public Participation Public participation is an integral part of MTCA (WAC - 173 -340 -600). Since the North Wind's Weir site remediation in being undertaken as a voluntary cleanup action, Ecology will not take the lead with public participation. The SEPA review process (required as part of project permitting) may have a public comment component. PAKC Sad W..i.WOtth wind'. wait CARNmt Wnd'. Weir CAP Updated 161-04.doe Section 8 ' Justification and Determinations 8 -2 t t .r tir Section 9 Documentation and Reporting The County's field representative will document the cleanup action using field investigation daily reports, soil sampling records, chain -of -custody forms, volatile surveillance records, and additional forms as appropriate. Examples of these forms are included in the SAP in the appendix to this CAP. Other important documentation generated during the cleanup will include weight tickets for soil hauled offsite. Following the cleanup action, King County or its representative will prepare a summary report for review by Ecology that will describe cleanup activities and present analytical results. Copies of laboratory reports and drawings showing the extent of excavation will be included in the report. Project recordkeeping will at a minimum follow requirement set forth in WAC 173 - 340 -850. These requirements include retaining factual information or data, relevant decision documents, and site specific documents or information for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of compliance monitoring. COM 9 -1 P:VCC Soid Wealdlb h wad. weir GAPWorri Wi d. Weir CAP updated 161-04.doe Section 10 References CDM, 2004. Environmental Site Assessment Report, North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Site, 11025 Pacific Highway South, Project #19897 - 42526, Tukwila, Washington. June 2004. Environmental Associates, Inc. 2001a. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Site One — Duwamish, Tax Lots #42304 - 9114 -09 and 042304 - 9118 -09, Project #083628, Tukwila, Washington. April 2001. Environmental Associates, Inc. 2001b. Preliminary Subsurface Sampling and Testing, Site One — Duwamish, Tax Lots #42304- 9114 -09 and 042304 - 9118 -09, Project #083628, Tukwila, Washington. June 2001. The Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies at the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Geologic log contained in Geodatabase, http: / /geomapnw .ess.washington.edu /index.php U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Appendix D of environmental assessment report for North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration, Duwamish River. June 2003. Waldron, Howard H., Liesch, Bruce A., Mullineaux, Donal R, and Crandell, Dwight R. 1962. U. S. Geological Survey. Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1 -354. 1962. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State. Toxics Cleanup Program, Department of Ecology, Publication #94 -115. October 1994. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173 -201A WAC. November 18, 1997. CDM 10 -1 P:■CC Solid WashANorlh W kde Wr CAPN orlh Wind's Weir CAP Updeled 101-0l.doe Distribution 5 Copies King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 Attention: Mr. Jon Hanson ■••••-•1 r,77, 77, 16004 rr1 cr.7.1 Table 1 Analytical Summary - Soil Environmental Associates, Inc. May 2001 Investigation King County/North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington CDM ' TPH (ma/kg) NWTPH-G - Gasoline Range NWTPH-D - Diesel Range NWTPH-D Ext. - Motor Oil Range Metals fmci/kcil EPA 6020 Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead BTEX frtmlkul Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes PAHs fmq/kril EPA 8270C Phenol bis (2-Chloroethyl) ether 2-Chlorophenol 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Benzyl alcohol bis (2-Chlorolsopropyl) ether 2-Methylphenol Hexachloroethane N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 4-Methylphenol Nitrobenzene Isophorone 2-Nitrophenol 30/100 2,000 2,000 20 2 2,000 250 0.03 7 6 9 17 17 17 7 17 17/ /17 /11 17 .17 28 220 300 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 0.30 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0,3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 4 160 340 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.06 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <1 <10 <50 2.35 <0.397 • 9.19 1.53 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 20 86 <0.3 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <1 <10 <50 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <10 <50 <0.3 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <1 <10 <50 1.31 0.426 7.93 1.22 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Mb P:\KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP\Table 1 TPH-Metals Soil Results Env Associates 2001 Data.xls Page 1 of 3 Table 1 Analytical Summary .Soil Environmental Associates, Inc May 2001 Investigation King County/North Wirid Weir Site Tukwila, Washington Benzoic Acid bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane 2,4-Dichlorophemm 1.2.*'Tnmmmmoenzan* Naphthalene nexoch|omuutadienu ^'Comrounmno *~cmvn,n-nomylphmoo| 2-Methylnaphthalene nux*cn|omcvmupen/aoienv 2.4.6'Tncmm,vpxeno| 2.*.5-Tn:o|nn,pxonm 2-Chloronaphthalene u'wiwounmno Dimethylphthalate Acenaphthylene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3-Nitroaniline Acenaphthene 2,4-Dinxmvxann Dibenzofuran 2,4-ooummmane 4-Nitrophenol oiomylnhmo|ate Fluorene 4~ompmphonyl-poonylemu, n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 4-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether Hexaclorobenzene pomam`mmp6env| Phenanthrene Anthracene Carbazole 5 11 11 :111 1 - <0.3 <0.3 - «0.03 «0.03 - <0u3 <0.03 - <0.3 "0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 "0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - *0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - . <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 ^0.03 - <0z3 <0.03 - <0u3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 =0.3 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 "nou - <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 ^0.3 - ^0.03 "0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 0.29 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 «0.03 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 "0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 CDM / � m-7 � ��8 ��U ��� ��8 r�� 0. wool Page uoru mop ryrt Table 1 Analytical Summary - Soil Environmental Associates, Inc. May 2001 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington DM Di- n- butylphthalate Fluoranthene Pyrene Butylbenzylphthalate 3,3'- Dichlorobenzidine Benz(a)anthracene* Chrysene' bis (2- Ethylhexyl) phthalate Di- n- octylphthalate Benzo(a)pyrene* Benzo(b)fluoranthene• Benzo(k)fluoranthene• Indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene• Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene• Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TEQ cPAH ::;:;::;::;:::;:;:;:::: :s5;:::Y::Y::;;:;::::;::;::; fi; c i:: i:: i::::::;:::;:;:::::;» i;:::: 2:::;; i:: 2:::;::;:;::;;::; 5: 2: : . : . ::: ... ::: .... : : D ; •:: .;, ..:: ::::;::;;:?:: i::::;:;;;::;:::::;:: 2::;:;: t;:::::;;:; :;;:;:::;:::::::;:;::i;:::::::: ;::.; tej it? d" : e t 's " A s > :arltt: :atb Slam 'a :.;<:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:.;::::; :;;:.::;•;:.>:::;::><:::::;.:. ><::;:<:: >::::;::<:: >::«:;:..:: it f....... ISTiTfit......051 E.:.OSdt7lif t. .:OS197f01....::05/It lf)A: > <`.:(15G 17/0 t. :05/17101 .;:.: 5f E7It21...:05,17/Q t....;05f1 1Q f :...05117103......:.05 /171 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0 0 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0 0 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0 Notes: 'carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Bold value denotes detected concentration. Total cPAH concentrations based on the toxic equivalency method (TEQ) outlined in WAC 173 - 340 - 709(8). a) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -340, Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, Method A suggested soil deanup level for unrestricted land uses; promulgated August 15, 2001. b) 100 mg/kg without benzene and total of ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene are less than 1% of the gasoline mixture - 30 mg/kg all other gasoline mixtures. ft bgs - feet below ground surface. mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram. PAHs - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. TEQ - toxic equivalent. - not analyzed. < - analyte not detected at or greater than the listed concentration. P: \KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 1 TPH- Metals Soil Results Env Associates 2001 Data.xls Page 3 of 3 Table 2 Analytical Summary - Groundwater Environmental Associates, Inc. May 2001 Investigation King County/North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington TPH (uq /Lj NWTPH -G - Gasoline Range NWTPH -D - Diesel Range NWTPH -D Ext. - Motor Oil Range Metals (uaILZ Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead BTEX (ua /L) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes 800/1,000 b 500 500 5.0 5.0 50.0 15.0 5.0 1,000 700 1,000 <50 180 290 <50 72 <250 — — <1 — — <1 — — 1.63 — — <1 <50 <50 64 <50 <250 <250 <50 58 <250 9.42 <1 2.46 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Notes: Bold value denotes detected concentration. Boxed value exceeds MTCA Method A cleanup level. a) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -340, Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation (MTCA), Method A suggested groundwater; promulgated August 15, 2001. b) 800 µg /L if benzene is present in groundwater; 1,000 µg /L if no detectable benzene in water. pg /L - micrograms per liter. — not analyzed. < - analyte not detected at or greater than the listed concentration. CDM P: \KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 2 TPH - Metals GW Results Env Associates 2001 Data.xls CDM Table 3 Analytical Summary - Soil Army Corps of Engineers June 2003 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington TPH (mq /ko) TPH - Gasoline Range TPH - Diesel Range TPH -Motor Oil Range Metals Imglko) Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver BTEX (mq /kq) Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene Total Xylenes MTBE PAHs (mq /kq) EPA 8270C Naphthalene 2- Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Total Low MW PAHs Fluoranthene Benzo(a)anthracene* Chrysene* Total Benzofluoranthenes* Benzo(a)pyrene* Indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene* Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene* Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Dibenzofuran Total High MW PAHs Pyrene TEQ cPAH 100 2,000 2,000 20 2 2,000 250 2 0.03 6 7 9 0.1 5 0.1 0.1 <5.5 54 140 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 10 460 480 < <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <5.3 1,300 2,300 <10 <5 115 61.4 1.1 <0.2 57 44.3 136 15 <0.04 <0.05 <10 <5 <0.8 <0.3 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.075 <0.014 0.075 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 0.18 0.013 0.054 <0.014 0.309 0.013 0.10 0.014 <0.075 <0.014 0.058 0.016 <0.150 <0.028 0.068 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 <0.075 <0.014 0.226 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.069 0.00016 P:UCC Solid Waste\North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 3 Analytical Summary Soil Army Corps 2003 Data.xls Page 1 of 2 CDM Table 3 Analytical Summary - Soil Army Corps of Engineers June 2003 Investigation King County/North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington PCBs (mq /kq) EPA 8082 Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1254 Aroclor 1260 Aroclor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Total PCBs 1 <0.037 <0.037 <0.037 <0.049 0.085 <0.075 <0.037 0.085 <0.033 <0.033 <0.033 <0.033 <0.033 <0.067 <0.033 0 Notes: *carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Bold value denotes detected concentration. Boxed value exceeds MTCA Method A unrestricted soil cleanup level. Total cPAH concentrations based on the toxic equivalency method (TEQ) outlined in WAC 173 - 340 - 708(8). a) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -340, Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation (MTCA), Method A suggested soil cleanup level for unrestricted land uses; promulgated August 15, 2001. PAHs - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. TEQ - toxic equivalent. ft bgs - feet below ground surface. mg /kg - milligrams per kilogram. < - analyte not detected at or greater than the listed concentration. P: \KC Solid Waste\North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 3 Analytical Summary Soil Army Corps 2003 Data.xls Page 2 of 2 Table 4 Analytical Summary - Soil CDM April 2004 Investigation King County/North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington DM pH TPH (mg /kg) NWTPH -Dx Diesel Range Lube Oil Range Total Lead (mg /kg) EPA 6010B Lead PAHs (mg /kg) EPA 8270C /SIM Naphthalene 2- Methylnaphthalene 1- Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benz(a)anathracene' Chrysene* Benzo(b)fluoranthene* Benzo(k)fluoranthene' Benzo(a)pyrene• Indeno(1,2,3- c,d)pyrene• Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene• Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TEQ cPAH 2,000 2,000 250 0.1 0.1 8.6 7.1 - <150 660 - <0.0078 <0.0078 <0.0078 - <0.0078 0.010 0.0094 0.031 - <0.0078 0.031 - 0.034 0.013 0.029 0.025 - 0.028 0.030 -- 0.016 -- 0.0089 0.039 0.042 <28 120 <6.0 0.014 0.22 0.20 <0.0079 0.021 0.032 0.19 0.028 0.14 0.19 0.069 0.088 0.051 0.056 0.078 0.045 0.010 0.056 0.1051 69 <27 <60 <54 iiketY el a p <27 <54 8.0 <28 <56 51 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 - <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 <0.0074 0 <29 <59 P: \KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 4 CDM Analytical Summary Soil.xls Page 1 of 4 Table 4 Analytical Summary - Soil CDM April 2004 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington PCBs (mg /kg) EPA 8082 Arodor 1016 Arodor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Arodor 1242 Arodor 1248 Arodor 1254 Arodor 1260 Total PCBs 1 iraf�ats:sam le (._._ . Solid` Th \Nor id's V .` -"4P \T ,; CDty jtical iary WIN Prrsrf 4 Table 4 Analytical Summary - Soil CDM April 2004 Investigation King County/North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington pH TPH (mg /kg) NWTPH -Dx Diesel Range Lube Oil Range Total Lead (mg/kg) EPA 60108 Lead PAHs (mg/kg) EPA 8270C /SIM Naphthalene 2- Methylnaphthalene 1- Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benz(a)anathracene' Chrysene' Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene' Benzo(a)pyrene* Indeno(1,2,3- c,d)pyrene' D ibenzo(a,h)anthracene' Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TEQ cPAH 2,000 2,000 250 5 0 :1 0.1 <29 77 <32 200 1,000 <63 0.015 0.021 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.041 0.020 0.045 0.078 0.021 0.054 0.051 0.042 0.031 0.032 0.010 0.044 0.050 8.9 <30 <33 <60 <65 - <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 <0.0087 0 43 <29 <33 <57 <66 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 -- - <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 -- - <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 <0.0088 0 Con P : \KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 4 CDM Analytical Summary Soil.xls ' 8.1 <31 <31 <62 <63 Page 3 of 4 Table 4 Analytical Summary - Soil CDM April 2004 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington PCBs (mg /kg) EPA 8082 Aroclor 1016 Arodor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Arodor 1254 Arodor 1260 Total PCBs 1 <0.063 <0.063 <0.063 <0.063 <0.063 <0.063 0.089 0.089 ample t 0., Oepth {ft bgs) atnd Date Sa ei pled <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 0 Notes: *carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Bold value denotes detected concentration. Boxed value exceeds MTCA Method A cleanup level. Total cPAH concentrations based on the toxic equivalency method (TEQ) outlined in WAC 173 - 340 - 708(8). a) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -340, Model Toxics Control,Act Cleanup Regulation, Method A suggested soil cleanup level for unrestricted land uses; promulgated August 15, 2001. PAHs - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. TEQ - toxic equivalent. PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls. TPH - total petroleum hydrocarbons. mg /kg - milligrams per kilogram. COM f Solid' """'",, \Norr" hd's Vr"" `��AP \Tt''" TICDt tical ary 0 011011 11 r-"1 7 '"1 ""^"DTI P ?of 4 F r DM Table 5 Analytical Summary - Soil Evaluated as Sediment CDM April 2004 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington Total Organic Carbon (ma/kg) EPA 9060 TOC Total Metals (mg /kg) EPA 6010B17471A Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Silver Zinc PAHs (mg /kg) EPA 8270C /SIM Naphthalene b 2- Methylnaphthalene 1- Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene b Acenaphthene b Fluorene b Phenanthrene b Anthracene b Fluoranthene c Pyrene Benz(a)anathracene* Chrysene* c Benzo(b)fluoranthene c Benzo(k)fluoranthene c Total Benzofluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene c Indeno(1,2,3- c,d)pyrene c Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene c Benzo(g,h,i)perylene c LPAH HPAH 57 5.1 260 390 450 0.41 6.1 410 99 38 66 16 23 100 220 160 1,000 110 110 230 99 34 12 31 370 960 477 <13 <0.63 4.0 5.5 <6.3 <0.32 <0.63 11 Normalized to TOC DWB <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 <16.8 0 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 <0.0084 0 0 667 <13 <0.63 6.2 8.8 <6.3 <0.31 <0.63 14 Normalized to TOC DWB <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <11.9 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <0.0083 <11.9 <0.0083 <11.9 <0.0083 <11.9 <0.0083 <11.9 <0.0083 0 0 0 0 P: \KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 5 CDM Analytical Summary Sediment.xls Page 1 of 2 Table 5 Analytical Summary - Soil Evaluated as Sediment CDM April 2004 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington PCBs (mg /kg) EPA 8082 Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1254 Aroclor 1260 Total PCBs 12 <90 <0.063 <90 <0.063 — <90 <0.063 <90 <0.063 <90 <0.063 <90 <0.063 <90 <0.063 0 0 Notes: Bold value denotes detected concentration. a) From Table 1, Marine Sediment Quality Standards - Chemical Criteria, WAC 173 - 204 -320. b) LPAHs - low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. c) HPAHs - high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Total benzofluoranthenes is the sum of the b, j, and k isomers. Data are not available for the j isomer. PAHs - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. TEQ - toxic equivalent. PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls. TOC - total organic carbon. DWB - dry weight basis. ft bgs - feet below ground surface. mg /kg - milligrams per kilogram. < - analyte not detected at or greater than the listed concentration. P: \KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 5 CDM Analytical Summary Sediment.xls Page 2 of 2 t CDM Table 6 Analytical Summary - Groundwater CDM April 2004 Investigation King County /North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington TPH (µg /L) NWTPH -Dx Diesel Range Lube Oil Range PAHs (µg /L) EPA 9270C /SIM Naphthalene 2- Methylnaphthalene 1- Methylnaphthalene Total Naphthalenes Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benz(a)anathracene* Chrysene' Benzo(b)fluoranthene* Benzo(k)fluoranthene* Benzo(a)pyrene• I ndeno(1,2,3- c,d)pyrene' Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene' Benzo(g,h, i)perylene TED cPAH VOCs (AWL) EPA 8260B Dichlorodifluoromethane Chloromethane Vinyl Chloride Bromomethane Choroethane Trichlorofluoromethane 1,1- Dichloroethene Acetone . - lodomethane Carbon Disulfide Methylene Chloride trans ,2-Dichloroethene Methyl t -Butyl Ether 1,1- Dichloroethane Vinyl Acetate 2,2- Dichloropropane cis - 1,2 - Dichloroethene 2- Butanone Bromochloromethane Chloroform 1,1,1- Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1- Dichloropropene Benzene 1,2- Dichloroethane . and ": Sarnplr 3 b. a . ate:5sinpfe�. 19104 ::: t)4t19/04. >: 04L.i9104 . :: t14t19t04 tL191 500 <250 500 <400 160 0.1 0.1 0.2 5 20 200 5 <260 <420 <260 <420 <0.10 0.25 0.38 0.63 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <5.0 <1.0 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <5.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <260 <420 <250 <400 <0.096 <0.096 <0.096 0 <0.096 0.20 <0.096 <0.096 <0.096 <0.096 <0.096 <0.0096 <0.0096 <0.0096 <0.0096 <0.0096 <0.0096 <0.0096 <0.0096 0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <5.0 <1.0 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <5.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <260 <410 P:\KC Solid Waste \North Wind's Weir CAP \Table 6 CDM Analytical Summary Water.xls Page 1 of2 Table 6 Analytical Summary - Groundwater CDM April 2004 Investigation King County/North Wind Weir Site Tukwila, Washington Trichloroethene 1,2- Dichloropropane Dibromomethane B ro mod ich l orometha ne 2- Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether cis -1,3- Dichloropropene Methyl lsobutyl Ketone Toluene trans -1, 3- Dichloropropene 1,1,2- Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethene 1,3- Dichloropropane 2- Hexanone Dibromochloromethane 1,2- Dibromoethane Chlorobenzene 1,1,1,2- Tetrachloroethane Etylbenzene m,p- Xylene o- Xylene Total Xylenes Styrene Bromoform Isopropylbenzene Bromobenzene 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane 1,2, 3- Trichloropropane n- Propylbenzene 2- Chlorotoluene 4- Chlorotoluene 1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene tert - Butylbenzene 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene sec- Butylbenzene 1,3- Dichlorobenzene p- Isopropyltoluene 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 1,2- Dichlorobenzene n- Butylbenzene 1,2 -D ibromo-3- chloropropane 1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Naphthalene 1,2,3- Trichlorobenzene etha ..... ...::.... `arid Date Sam ted«< > _ :..:..: < « € >041 9104«> >Qai:: <., >.:: :.;:, a<> <a4t �f9t .4......... t ....... �� Q4......1)4?19 19/ tt)........ . 1,000 5 700 1,000 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.40 <0.20 0 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.70 <0.20 <2.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.40 <0.20 0 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <1.0 <0.20 Notes: 'carcenogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Bold value denotes detected concentration. Total cPAH concentrations based on the toxic equivalency method (TEQ) outlined in WAC 173 -340- 708(8). a) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -340, Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, Method A suggested soil cleanup level for unrestricted land uses; promulgated August 15, 2001. PAHs - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. VOC - volatile organic compounds. TEQ - toxic equivalent. pg/L - micrograms per liter. TPH - total petroleum hydrocarbons. < - analyte not detected at or greater than the listed concentration. P: \KC Solid Waste\North Wind's. Weir CAP \Table 6 CDM Analytical Summary Water.xls Page 2 of 2 Table 7 Summary of Compounds Detected in Soil and Groundwater and Comparison to ARARs King County / North Wind's Weir Site Tukwila, Washington P:\KC Solid WasleWorth Wind's Weir CAP\Table 7 Comparison of Cleanup Levels.ris •••1' Maximum Detected Concentration Number of Detections Number of Samples MTCA Method A MICA Method 8 Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic MTCA Ecological Indicator Soil Concentrations d State Surface Water Criteria e (Freshwater Chronic) Federal Drinking Water Standards (MCL) 0.021 0.20 2 1 16 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,800 960 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.054 <0.1 3 16 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 24,000 2,400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.056 3 16 <0.01 0 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.14 5 16 • <0.1 0 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,200 640 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.032 <0.1 2 16 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,200 640 30 N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A 0.43 0.63 2 1 16 2 5.0 160 N/A N/A 1,600 160.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.19 0.10 5 1 16 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A • N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 1 of 3 COM Table 7 Summary of Compounds Detected in Soil and Groundwater and Comparison to ARARs King County / North Wind's Weir Site Tukwila, Washington Maximum Detected Concentration Number of Detections Number of Samples MTCA Method A a MTCA Method B Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic MTCA Ecological Indicator Soil Concentrations d Surface Water e Federal Drinking Water Standards (MCL) 0.105 <0.01 5 0 16 2 0.1 2 N/A N/A N/A WA N/A . N/A N/A N/A • N/A N/A 0.19 <0.1 5 0 16 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,400 480 WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.35 2 4 9.42 1 2 20 5 0.667 0.583 24 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 190 N/A 50 1.1 2 4 <1 0 2 2 5 N/A N/A 80 . 8 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 57 4 4 2.46 2 2 2,000 50 N/A N/A 120,000 24,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 136 7 <1 0 2 250 15 N/A N/A N/A WA 50 N/A N/A N/A t N/A 15 P:\KC Solid Waste\North Wind's Weir CAP\Table 7 Comparison of Cleanup Levels.xls Yfgw"�.m� Page 2 of 3 CDM Table 7 Summary of Compounds Detected in Soil and Groundwater and Comparison to ARARs King County / North Wind's Weir Site Tukwila, Washington Maximum Detected Concentration Number of Detections Number of Samples MTCA Method A MTCA Method B ° Carcinogenic Noncarcinogenic MTCA Ecological Indicator Soil Concentrations d Surface Water e Federal Drinking Water Standards (MCL) 0.089 2 4 0 1.0 0.1 0.112 N/A 0.56 N/A 0.65 N/A N/A 0.014 N/A 0.5 28 3 8 <50 0 5 100 1,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,300 180 7 4 26 11 2,000 500 WA N/A N/A N/A 200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,300 290 10 1 26 11 2,000 500 N/A WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <1 0 5 6 700 N/A N/A 8,000 800 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.04 1 8 N/A 700 - 0.70 - 1 0 2 0.5 5 19.6 0.858 800 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 0.3 2 8 <1 0 5 9 1,000 N/A N/A 160,000 16,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000 Notes: a) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -340, Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation, Method A suggested soil and groundwater cleanup level for unrestricted land uses; promulgated August 15, 2001. b) Method B formula value (direct contact pathway as a carcinogen or noncarcinogen) from the Department of Ecology Publication #94 -145, Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculations under the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Level Regulation CLARC Version 3.1); updated November 2001. c) Total naphthalenes (includes 1- methylnaphthalene and 2- methylnaphthalene). d) From Table 749 -3, WAC 173 -340, The most stringent of the values for plants, soil biota, or wildlife is listed. e) Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173 -201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, revised July 1, 2003. f) Standard based on calculation using hardness of surface water body. MCL - maximum contaminant level - Primary Drinking -Water Standards. mg/kg - milligram per kilogram. pg /L - microgram per liter. N/A - not available or not applicable. P:\KC Solid WasteWorth Wind's Weir CAP\Table 7 Comparison of Cleanup Levels.xls Page 3 of 3 Table 8 Summary of ARARs King County/North Winds Weir Site Tukwila, Washington DM P:\KC Solid Waste\North Wind's Weir CAP\Table 8 ARARs.xls Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) RCW 70.105D Safe Drinking Water Act Public Law 93-523 Water Pollution Control Act RCW 90.48 Hazardous Waste Management RCW 70.105 and RCRA Water Well Construction RCW 18.04 State Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94) State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) RCW 43.21C MTCA Cleanup Regulations WAC 173-340 National Primary Drinking Water Standards Water Quality Standards for Groundwaters of the State of Washington (WAC 173-200) Dangerous Waste Regulation (WAC 173-303) and 40 CFR Part 260-272 Minimum Standards for Construction of Wells (WAC 173-160) Puget Sound Clean Air Authority (PSCAA) Regulation 1 and III General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources (WAC 173-40) SEPA Rules WAC 192-11 ARAR * Ifi9.0 • Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Relevant and Appropriate Not Applicable Applicable Not Applicable Applicable A:. Establishes cleanup standards for soil and groundwater at sites where hazardous substances have come to be located. This is the primary regulation driving cleanup actions at the site. Standards that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect drinking water quality by limiting the levels of specific contaminants that can adversely affect public health. Not directly applicable because they apply at the outlet of the user. Establishes groundwater quality standards, which together with technology-based treatment standards, provide for protection of existing and future use of groundwater. Not directly applicable because it specifically does not apply to voluntary cleanup actions under MTCA. Identifies wastes subject to RCRA and how they are managed. Establishes limits of contaminants in wastes and identified waste generation processes in order to classify wastes considered as dangerous/hazardous. Establishes standards for monitoring wells installed for Duwamish River tidal fluctuation monitoring. Applies to air emissions. The substantive requirements for the PSCAA Notice of Intent (N01) must be met. Requires a review of potential damage that occurs to the environment as a result of mares activities. SEPA checklist may be required prior to issuance of project permits. • irsul 177: rn PIA LOPO Ern- 7 tron PINE I J n M 0 0 •0 0 REFERENCE: USGS MAP - SEATTLE SOUTH OUADRANGLE, KING CO., 1973 0 H 1 Scale in Feet CDM 2400 KING COUNTY / NORTH WIND WEIR SITE TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON SITE 1 ` VICINITY Washington Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map CDM P: \19897 \42526\ N1 4 FIGURE 2 Wiwi Wiwi Lame &NO L:2 05/27/04 08:03:29 �'CIa740 � y O S139'21'411 2624.69' 4:15:57 KING COUNTY / NORTH WIND WEIR SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON riehlepj • N t ,, \ . SOUTH 112TH STREET a * k� 40 1" = 80' 0 • a, LEGEND 03 —BH -101 • TEST PIT LOCATIONS, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 2003 Ns� B -1 • SOIL BORING BO LOCATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC., 2001 80 Figure No. 2 Previous Investigation Exploration Locations P: \19897 \42526\ Y O 4 .0 SOUTH 112TH STREET 9 'b T FIGURE 3 o-D 0 s °- DM * A -7 FORMER UNDERGROUND TANK AREA }IRr4611 ICI *wwili 06/01/04 10:41:13 DIM MIA A— 6 S89'21'411 2624.69' (KC 2624.80') _1111 C NNW *MA YINYM 5:39:10 moffotjh N. N. \ N \ T mo \ �: \ \ \ \ \ e, •.• INItt tiry 16* A - 10B <� ti � * 4 6 * A -10 * A -5 toe KING COUNTY / NORTH WIND WEIR SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 0 A -2 A-3 o 1 a' � LEGEND A -1 * SOIL BORING LOCATIONS, CDM, 2004 Ns� MWA -9 * GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL go J,1 LOCATIONS, CDM, 2004 I" = 80' 1 40 0 80 Figure No. 3 Exploration Locations, CDM, 2004 r ran rn r7 I rill POI PM C71 - 7 7 n rn ma 'I 1 1 7 l 1 1 i 1 COM Appendix A Sampling and Analysis Plan P:VCC Sold WulsNbrlh WiM. Weir CAPNonh Wirers Weir CAP Updated 161-01.doc Sampling and Analysis Plan North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Site 11025 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington 98106 October 2004 Prepared For: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 Prepared By: GoM 11811 NE 1St Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 CDM Project No. 19897.42526 3 1 3 A Report Prepared For: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION SITE 11025 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98106 October 2004 Lance E. Peterson, P.G. Senior Hydrogeologist CDM 11811 N.E. 1st Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/453 -8383 CDM Project No. 19897.42526.Task 2 Contents Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Personnel and Their Responsibilities 1 -1 Section 2 Performance Monitoring 2.1 Overview of Performance Monitoring Soil Excavation Activities 2 -1 2.2 Performance Sampling Strategy 2 -1 2.3 Soil Sampling 2 -2 2.3.1 Soil Sample Collection Methods 2 -2 2.3.2 Organic Vapor Screening 2 -2 2.4 Analytical Schedule 2 -3 2.5 Cleanup Action Compliance 2 -3 Section 3 Confirmational Monitoring 3.1 Overview of Confirmational Monitoring Soil Excavation Activities 3 -1 3.2 Confirmational Monitoring Sampling Strategy 3 -1 3.3 Soil Sampling 3 -1 3.3.1 Soil Sample Collection Methods 3 -1 3.3.2 Organic Vapor Screening 3 -2 3.4 Analytical Schedule 3 -2 3.5 Cleanup Action Compliance 3 -2 Section 4 Quality Assurance Procedures 4.1 Precision 4-1 4.1.1 Field Precision Objectives 4-1 4.1.2 Laboratory Precision Objectives 4-1 4.2 Accuracy 4-2 4.2.1 Field Accuracy Objectives 4 4.2.2 Laboratory Accuracy Objectives 4 4.3 Completeness - 4-2 4.3.1 Field Completeness Objectives 4-3 4.3.2 Laboratory Completeness Objectives 4-3 4.4 Representativeness 4-3 4.4.1 Measures to Ensure Representativeness of Field Data 4-4 4.4.2 Measures to Ensure Representativeness of Laboratory Data 4-4 4.5 Comparability 4-4 4.5.1 Measures to Ensure Comparability of Field Data 4-4 4.5.2 Measures to Ensure Comparability of Laboratory Data 4-4 PVCC Sod Wute1North winds Weir CAPwoM Winds Weir SAP (2).doe Contents Section 5 Quality Control Samples 5.1 Field Duplicates 5 -1 5.1.1 Matrix Spike /Matrix Spike Duplicate 5 -1 5.2 Trip Blanks 5 -1 5.3 Rinsate Samples 5 -1 Section 6 Sample Containers, Custody Procedures, Shipping, Documentation, and Sample Identification 6.1 Sample Containers 6 -1 6.2 Custody Procedures 6 -1 6.3 Documentation and Sample Identification .., 6 -2 Section 7 Equipment Decontamination and Waste Control 7.1 Equipment Decontamination 7 -1 7.2 Waste Control 7 -1 Section 8 References 8 - Distribution Figures Attachments Attachment A Field Forms Attachment B OnSite Environmental, Inc. Precision Control Limits and Analytical Method MDLs /PQLs Figure 1 Estimated area containing TPH greater than 200 mg /kg Figure 2 Estimated area containing TPH less than 200 mg /kg P:■(C Solid WastsWorth Wind's Wen CAPWonh Winds Wok SAP (2).doo iv L: t. Section 1 Introduction This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) has been prepared for soil remediation activities on the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration site (site) located at 11025 Pacific Highway South in Tukwila, Washington (parcel tax identification numbers 04230499114 and 04230499118). Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) prepared this SAP as an appendix to the Cleanup Action Plan (CAP), which provides greater detail about the site history, previous investigations, and contamination encountered at the site, and cleanup levels. CDM's work was conducted under Work Order No. 6 to Contract No. E23023E. Site cleanup activities will be conducted as a voluntary cleanup action in accordance with Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), Washington Administrative Code 173 -340. Although cleanup to MTCA Method A cleanup levels would be appropriate for the site under a typical cleanup scenario, the planned redevelopment that includes removal of an estimated 65,000 cubic yards of soil from the site will necessitate soil management to concentrations as low as the laboratory detection limit. During the cleanup action, contaminated soil with greater than 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg) diesel- and oil -range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) will be excavated and will be either disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill or treated using low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD). Soil containing diesel- and oil -range TPH at concentrations above the laboratory detection limit but below 200 mg /kg will be disposed of at a location appropriate for such soil. The objective of the cleanup action is to remove all detectable petroleum hydrocarbon contamination so that site redevelopment construction can proceed. The purpose of this SAP is to ensure that sample collection, handling, and analysis will result in data of known and acceptable quality. 1.1 Project Personnel and Their Responsibilities Environmental remediation activities will be performed by King County. Mr. Mark Wilgus is the designated representative for King County (the County). Mr. Lance Peterson is the representative for CDM who will be the County's Technical Representative for the project. OnSite Environmental, Inc. (OnSite) of Redmond, Washington, is the analytical laboratory for this project. Mr. David Baumeister is OnSite's project manager and will serve as the primary contact person and will ensure that project requirements are met by the laboratory. OnSite contact information is as follows: OnSite Environmental Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883 -3881 Fax (425) 885 -4603 E -mail: dbaumeisteiflonsite- env.com PAKC Sold WaateWOAh Wind Weir CAPWorth Wide Wait SAP (2).doc Section 2 Performance Monitoring Performance monitoring typically consists of collecting and analyzing soil samples to confirm cleanup standards have been met. Performance monitoring for this remedial action will consist of collecting and analyzing soil samples from appropriate locations to confirm that soil exceeding the 200 mg /kg diesel- and oil-range TPH criteria has been removed. This section provides an overview of planned soil excavation activities, describes performance sampling strategy, soil sampling and headspace screening methods, and presents the analytical schedule. 2.1 Overview of Performance Monitoring Soil Excavation Activities Soil will be excavated using a trackhoe and directly loaded into trucks for transport off site to a Subtitle D landfill or LTTD facility. The estimated area containing diesel - and oil -range TPH greater than 200 mg /kg is shown on Figure 1. The adequacy of cleanup to the 200 mg /kg criteria will be verified using analytical testing from a laboratory. An onsite mobile laboratory may be utilized to expedite analytical results. Diesel - and oil -range TPH is the primary contaminant encountered at the site and is generally found in shallow soils (upper 5 to 10 feet) along the site perimeter adjacent to the Duwamish River and along the northern site border extending to the northeast comer (CDM, 2004). Excavated soil will be checked for field evidence of contamination (odor, staining, or elevated OVM headspace readings obtained using an organic vapor meter equipped with a photoionization detector [OVM- PIDJ). A determination will then be made (based on the judgment of the County's Technical Representative) that sufficient soil has been removed to meet the excavation criteria. 2.2 Performance Sampling Strategy An "area- wide" soil sampling strategy will be used to determine the adequacy of cleanup. Area -wide sampling is the preferred approach where the spatial distribution of contamination is uncertain. The distribution of TPH at the North Wind's Weir site is believed to be related to surface releases while the site was an auto salvage yard. Because the TPH is not confined to a discrete location, such as an underground storage tank, the area -wide sampling approach is appropriate. Following the guidance provided in Ecology's Guidance on Sampling and Data Analysis Methods (Ecology, 1995); samples will be collected on an approximate 60-foot-square grid. Approximate locations of proposed soil samples are shown on Figure 1 and may change based on conditions encountered at the time of the site work. Specific soil sample locations will be selected by the County's Technical Representative so that the most contaminated soil exposed in the excavation is sampled. Because the contamination is believed to have resulted from surface releases, segregation and stockpiling of dean overburden is not anticipated. Statistical evaluation of the analytical results may be performed. PA KC Sold W YbWorlh Winds Weir CAP1NoM Wincra War SAP (2).doe 2 -1 • The OVM -PID display maximum value will be recorded. P:VCC Solid Weste\North Winds Weir CAP,Noi h Wind's Weir SAP (2).doe Section 2 Performance Monitoring 23 Soil Sampling 2.3.1 Soil Sample Collection Methods A backhoe .bucket will be used for gathering soil where safety concerns will preclude collecting soil samples from the excavated area. The County's Technical Representative will direct the equipment operator to collect the soil sample from the correct location. Once the soil is brought to ground surface, the County's Technical Representative will scrape away surface soil using stainless steel spoons to expose undisturbed soil. Samples for chemical analysis will be collected using stainless steel spoons. All samples will be discrete. Soil will be placed sequentially into two 4-ounce pre - cleaned glass jars provided by the laboratory. The jars will be filled so zero headspace exists between the soil and the Teflon -lined cap. Filled sample jars will be labeled, secured, and placed in a cooler with Blue Ice if not provided immediately to an onsite mobile laboratory. Procedures for transporting samples to an off site laboratory are described in Section 6.0. The sampling spoons will be decontaminated between each sampling point using decontamination procedures described in Section 7.0. An aliquot from each sample will be screened for organic vapors as described below. These data will be used to attempt to develop a semi - quantitative relationship between headspace readings and petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. 2.3.2 Organic Vapor Screening Soil will be intermittently screened for contamination onsite using an OVM -PID. This screening measures organic vapors, evaluates their extent and distribution in soil, and will be used as a semi - quantitative screening tool for evaluating contaminant levels. The OVM -PID will be calibrated to isobutylene per the manufacturer's instructions. Samples will be screened for contamination using the following procedures: • Soil samples will be placed in a plastic bag. • The bag will be sealed, agitated for approximately 30 seconds, and the sample media will be allowed to equilibrate in the air space (headspace) for approximately 30 seconds. • The bag will be punctured, and the OVM -PID probe will be inserted. 2 -2 This analysis is not compound specific and is affected by several factors including climate, heat, temperature and humidity, soil types and conditions, and instrument calibration. The intent of this analysis is to qualitatively compare samples. OVM -PID screening results will be documented in the Daily Field Investigation form and /or soil sampling form. Soil judged to be contaminated will be placed directly into trucks for disposal or offsite treatment. f 2.4 Analytical Schedule All soil samples collected during the performance monitoring phase will be analyzed by Method NWTPH -Dx. Parameter Diesel- and oil -range TPH NWTPH-Dx 25 (diesel) and 50 (oil) mg /kg 2.5 Cleanup Action Compliance The purpose of the performance monitoring is to document removal of all soil containing greater than 200 mg /kg diesel- and oil -range TPH. The typical reporting limits for diesel - and oil -range TPH are 25 and 50 mg /kg, respectively. Reporting limits for the suite of analytical test methods common to environmental cleanup projects for both mobile and fixed laboratories is included in Attachment B. P:VCC Solid W..t.Wonh W. W.ir CAPNbrth Wines W.ir SAP (2).doe Section 2 Performance Monitoring Practical Analytical Method Quantitation Limit 2 -3 Section 3 Confirmational Monitoring Confirmational monitoring confirms the long -term effectiveness of the cleanup once performance monitoring indicates desired cleanup concentrations have been attained. Confirmational monitoring for this remedial action will consist of collecting and analyzing soil samples from appropriate locations to confirm that all soil exceeding the laboratory detection limit has been removed. This section provides an overview of planned soil excavation activities, describes conformational sampling strategy, soil sampling and headspace screening methods, and presents the analytical schedule. 3.1 Overview of Confirmational Monitoring Soil Excavation Activities Soil will be excavated using a trackhoe and directly loaded into trucks for transport off site to an appropriate off site end -use location. The estimated area containing diesel - and oil -range TPH less than 200 mg /kg is shown on Figure 2. The adequacy of cleanup to the laboratory detection limit criteria will be verified using analytical testing from a laboratory. An onsite mobile laboratory may be utilized to expedite analytical results. Excavated soil will be intermittently screened using an organic vapor meter equipped with a photoionization detector (OVM - PID), and a determination will be made (based on the judgment of the County's field representative) that sufficient soil has been removed to meet the excavation criteria. 3.2 Confirmational Monitoring Sampling Strategy Soil removal will focus on the areas documented during the performance monitoring sampling to contain TPH (see Figure 2 for conceptual area planned for excavation). An area -wide soil sampling strategy will again be used to determine the adequacy of deanup. Following the guidance provided in Ecology's Guidance on Sampling and Data Analysis Methods (Ecology, 1995), samples will be collected on an approximate 60 - foot- square grid. Approximate locations of the soil samples are shown on Figure 2 and may change based on conditions encountered at the time of the site work. Specific soil sample locations will be selected by the County's Technical Representative so that the most contaminated soil exposed in the excavation is sampled. Statistical evaluation of the analytical results may be preformed. 3.3 Soil Sampling 3.3.1 Soil Sample Collection Methods A backhoe bucket will be used for gathering soil where safety concerns will preclude collecting soil samples from the excavated area. The County's Technical Representative will direct the equipment operator to collect the soil sample from the correct location. Once the soil is brought to ground surface, the County's Technical Representative will scrape away surface soil using stainless steel spoons to expose undisturbed soil. Samples for chemical analysis will be collected using stainless steel spoons. All samples P .KC sow W..I. N.dh WiM. Weir CARNodh WYd. W.6 SAP (2).doe Parameter Diesel and oil - range TPH Carcinogenic PAHs PA KC Solid W ui. North Wind's weir CAPWorth Wind's weir SAP (2).doc Analytical Method NWTPH - Dx EPA Method 8270C Section 3 Confirmational Monitoring will be discrete. Soil will be placed sequentially into two 4 -ounce pre- cleaned glass jar. The jars will be filled so zero headspace exists between the soil and the Teflon -lined cap. Filled sample jars will be labeled, secured, and placed in a cooler with Blue Ice if not provided immediately to the onsite mobile laboratory. Procedures for transporting samples to an off site laboratory are described in Section 6.0. The sampling spoons will be decontaminated between each sampling point using decontamination procedures described in Section 7.0. An aliquot from each sample will be screened for organic vapors as described below. This data will be used to attempt to develop a semi - quantitative relationship between headspace readings and petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. 3.3.2 Organic Vapor Screening Organic vapor screening will be performed using the same methods as described in Section 2.3.2. It is anticipated that soil containing TPH at or below 200 mg /kg will not exhibit substantive field evidence of contamination (odor, staining, or elevated OVM headspace). Therefore, soil judged to be contaminated will likely be placed directly into trucks for disposal or offsite treatment. 3.4 Analytical Schedule All soil samples collected during the conformational monitoring phase will be analyzed for diesel- and oil -range TPH by Northwest Method NWTPH -Dx. Selected samples will also be analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270C. Since the presence of PAHs is an artifact of the TPH contamination, only samples analyzed from selected locations distributed across the site are necessary to document the concentration of PAHs. An estimated 10 percent of the sample locations will be analyzed for PAHs. Practical Ouantitation Limit 25 (diesel) and 50 (oil) mg /kg . 0.033 — 0.33 mg /kg 3.5 Cleanup Action Compliance The purpose of the compliance monitoring is to document removal of all soil containing greater than the laboratory detection limit for diesel- and oil -range TPH and PAHs. The typical reporting limits for diesel- and oil -range TPH are 25 and 50 mg /kg, respectively. Reporting limits for the suite of analytical test methods common to environmental cleanup projects for both mobile and fixed laboratories is included in Attachment B. 3 -2 Section 4 Quality Assurance Procedures The overall quality assurance (QA) objective for this project is to develop and implement procedures for field sampling, chain -of- custody, laboratory analysis, and reporting that will provide technically and legally defensible results. This section discusses QA objectives and procedures for this project. 4.1 Precision Precision is a measure of reproducibility of measurements of the same characteristic, usually under a given set of conditions. 4.1.1 Field Precision Objectives Field precision will be assessed by the collection and analysis of field duplicates and will be expressed as relative percent difference (RPD). Duplicate samples are analyzed to check for matrix variability and analytical method reproducibility. At a minimum, one field duplicate will be collected for every 20 investigative samples by media and analyzed for the same parameters listed for the media samples. Field duplicate collection is discussed in Section 5.0. 4.1.2 Laboratory Precision Objectives The control limits for accuracy automatically identify the precision of a method. In the analysis of samples in a batch, if the recoveries of the analytes of interest are within control limits, then the precision also is within control. Precision also may be calculated in terms of Relative Percent Difference (RPD). Precision will be assessed by comparing the analytical results between matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS /MSD) for organic analysis, and between laboratory duplicates for inorganic analysis. The relative percent difference (RPD) will be calculated for each pair of duplicate analyses using the following equation: RPD = X - X2 (100 %) (Xi + X2) / Where: RPD = relative percent different. X1, X2 = value of sample 1 and sample 2. RPDs may be compared to the laboratory- established RPD control limits for the analysis. OnSite's precision control limits are included in Attachment B. Precision of duplicates depends on sample homogeneity. MC Solid Wrt.Wor h Wind. Weir CAPWodh Wind. Weir SAP (2).doc 4.2 Accuracy Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement or average of measurements with an accepted reference or "true" value and is a measure of bias in the system. The accuracy of a measurement system is impacted by errors introduced through the sampling process, field contamination, preservation, handling, sample matrix, sample preparation, and analytical techniques. 4.2.1 Field Accuracy Objectives The achievement of accurate data in the field will be addressed using trip blanks and rinsate samples and through the adherence to all sample handling, preservation, and holding times. Trip blanks and rinsates are discussed in Section 5.0. 4.2.2 Laboratory Accuracy Objectives Results for blank, matrix spikes, laboratory control samples, and surrogates will be the primary indicators of accuracy. These results will be used to control accuracy by requiring that they meet specific criteria. As spiked samples are analyzed, spike recoveries will be calculated and compared to acceptance limits. The calculation formula for percent recovery is: PANC Solid Wute\North Wind's Weir CAPNonh Wind's Weir SAP (2).doe R% - ( C1 - C %) C3 Where: R% = Spike amount recovered. Ci = Concentration of analyte in spiked sample. C2 = Concentration of analyte in unspiked sample. C3 = Concentration of spike added. Section 4 Quality Assurance Procedures Acceptance limits will be based on previously established laboratory performance for similar samples and shown on the control limits list in Attachment B. In this approach, the control limits reflect the minimum and maximum recoveries expected for individual measurements for an in- control system. Recoveries outside the established limits indicate some assignable cause, other than normal measurement error, and possible need for corrective action. Corrective actions may include recalibration of the instrument, reanalysis of the QC sample, reanalysis of the samples in the batch, re- preparation of samples in the batch, or flagging the data as suspect if the problems cannot be resolved. For contaminated samples, recovery of matrix spikes may depend on sample homogeneity, matrix interference, and dilution requirements for quantitation. 4.3 Completeness Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount expected under normal conditions. 4 -2 4.3.1 Field Completeness Objectives Field completeness is a measure of the amount of valid measurements obtained from all the measurements taken in the project. Field completeness for this project will be greater than 90 percent. As an example, if samples were to arrive at the laboratory broken /damaged, then field completeness may be compromised. 4.3.2 Laboratory Completeness Objectives The project laboratory (OnSite Environmental) will provide data meeting QC acceptance criteria for a minimum of 90 percent of the samples tested using the SW -846 and other standard methods. At the completion of sample analysis testing, the percent completeness will be calculated by the following equation: Where: Section 4 Quality Assurance Procedures 4.4 Representativeness Representativeness qualitatively expresses the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental condition. C% = R (100 %) C = completeness. S = number of successful analyses. R = number of requested analyses. Successful laboratory analyses can only be accomplished if both the field and laboratory portions of the project are successful. Factors that adversely effect completeness include: • Receipt of samples in broken containers. • Receipt of samples in which chain of custody or sample integrity is compromised in some way. • Samples received with insufficient volume to perform initial analyses or repeat analyses, if initial efforts do not meet QC acceptance criteria. . • Improperly preserved samples. • Samples held in the field or laboratory longer than expected, thereby jeopardizing holding time requirements. • Samples that have unclear analyses requests. PA KC Solid W..t.Worth Wind. Wok CAPJ oM Wines Wok SAP (2) doe Representativeness expresses the degree to which a sample represents a source material, an environmental media, or a geochemical process. Representativeness is a qualitative parameter, dependent on the proper design of the sampling program and proper choice of extraction and analytical methods. The characteristic of representativeness cannot be quantified. Subjective factors to be taken into account are as follows: ■ Degree of homogeneity of a site. • Degree of homogeneity of a sample taken from one point in a site. ■ Available information on which a sampling plan is based. 4.4.1 Measures to Ensure Representativeness of Field Data Field duplication and field replication, as defined under precision, also are used to assess representativeness. Two samples that are collected at the same location and at the same time are considered equally representative of this condition, at a given point in space and time. 4.4.2 Measures to Ensure Representativeness of Laboratory Data Within the laboratory, precautions are taken to extract from the sample container an aliquot representative of the whole sample. 4.5 Comparability P. KC Solid WuteNbtth Wind's Weir CAPWorth Wind's Weir SAP (2).doe Section 4 ` Quality Assurance Procedures Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared with another. The extent to which existing and new analytical data will be comparable depends on the similarity of sampling and analytical methods. 4.5.1 Measures to Ensure Comparability of Field Data Comparability is dependent upon the proper design of the sampling program and will be satisfied by ensuring that field procedures articulated in this SAP or that standard industry practice are followed and that proper sampling techniques are used. 4.5.2 Measures to Ensure Comparability of Laboratory Data The analytical laboratory for this project (OnSite Environmental) is the same as was used in the during the most recent site assessment work in April 2004. Soil analytical methods used for the assessment will be retained. 4 -4 Section 5 Quality Control Samples This section describes the purpose of quality control (QC) samples and discusses how they will be collected. 5.1 Field Duplicates Duplicate samples are analyzed to check for matrix variability and analytical method reproducibility. One field duplicate will be collected for every 20 soil samples. Duplicate samples will be analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples. 5.1.1 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate A matrix spike (MS) is an environmental sample to which known concentration of a target analyte or surrogate compound has been added. MS samples are analyzed to evaluate the effect of the sample matrix on the analytical methodology. A matrix spike duplicate (MSD) is a second aliquot of sample that is spiked with target analytes and analyzed with the associated MS sample. MSD analyses are performed for all analytical methods anticipated for this project with the exception of the TPH methods. MSD analyses are not part of the TPH method requirements. 5.2 Trip Blanks Volatile organic samples are susceptible to contamination by diffusion of organic contaminants through the septum of the sample vial. Trip blanks are analyzed to monitor for possible sample contamination during shipment for volatile organics. Trip blanks are prepared in the laboratory by filling preserved VOC vials (with no headspace) with organic -free water. Trip blanks accompany the sample containers during transit from the laboratory to the site, collection, and shipment to the laboratory. They are stored with the samples in the laboratory. Trip blanks are not anticipated for the project since only semi - volatile analytical methods are planned. If volatile analytical methods are used, then a minimum of one trip blank will accompany every third sample batch containing samples for volatile analyses. 5.3 Rinsate Samples Rinsate samples are used to assess whether soil sampling equipment has been properly decontaminated between sample locations. Rinsates will be obtained by passing distilled water through or over the sampling device and capturing the water in appropriate sample containers. Rinsate samples will be collected and analyzed for diesel- and oil -range TPH by Northwest Method NWTPH -Dx. A minimum of one rinsate sample will accompany every third sample batch. DM 5 -1 P.NCC Solid W..l.Worth Wind's weir CAPNodh Winds Weir SAP (2).doe Section 6 Sample Containers, Custody Procedures, Shipping, Documentation, and Sample Identification 6.1 Sample Containers Pre - cleaned 4 -ounce glass sample containers will be provided by OnSite Environmental. The containers will be kept closed and in their shipping boxes until used. After sampling, the containers will be labeled, placed in coolers, chilled to 4 OC (if not provided immediately to an onsite mobile laboratory). If soil samples for volatile analyses are collected then Method 5035A must be followed (Ecology, 2004). 6.2 Custody Procedures Samples collected during performance and confirmational monitoring represent physical evidence collected from the site. Because of the potential use of these samples as evidence, their possession must be traceable from collection until the data from them are ultimately used. A chain -of- custody protocol will be followed to maintain and document sample possession. The principal documents used include: • Sample labels. • Soil sampling records. • Chain -of- custody records. A copy of a chain -of- custody form is included in Attachment A. Each sample will be labeled. Each label will include, at a minimum, the following information: • Project name and number. ■ Name of collector. ■ _ Date and time of collection. ✓ Number that uniquely identifies the sample and its collection location (the sample numbering sequence will not indicate to the laboratory which samples are duplicates). • Preservative (if any). The use of custody seals on sample containers is not anticipated since an onsite laboratory will be utilized or samples will not leave the custody of the County's Technical Representative or a representative of the laboratory. If sample are transported to OnSite Environmental's fixed laboratory in Redmond, Washington then samples will be properly packaged for shipment and dispatched to the laboratory for analysis, with a separate, signed custody record enclosed in each sample cooler. Sample coolers will be secured with custody seals and clear acetate packaging tape (the PN(C Sofia WuteWorlh wines welt CAPVdoNn wind's W,. SAP (2).aoo 6-1 Section 6 Sample Containers, Custody Procedures, Shipping, Documentation, and Sample Identification custody seals are covered with clear plastic tape) for shipment to the laboratory. Samples will be hand delivered or picked up from the site by an OnSite Environmental employee for delivery to the laboratory. The chain - of - custody records will contain, at a minimum, the following information: • Sample number. • Signature of collector. • Date and time of collection. • Place of collection. • Sample matrix. • Signatures of persons involved in the chain of possession. • Inclusive dates of possession. The chain -of- custody record also will be used to indicate what analyses are required by checking the appropriate box(es) on the form. Following proper sealing and labeling, sample containers will be placed on Blue Ice in a cooler if not immediately provided to the onsite mobile laboratory. 6.3 Documentation and Sample Identification The Daily Field Investigation form is the basis of field activity documentation. An example form is included in Attachment A. Entries on it describe the day's activities. Field measurements and sample data will be recorded on appropriate forms and induded as attachments to the Daily Field Investigation Form. If an incorrect entry is made, the information will be crossed out with a single line and initialed and dated by the field representative. Whenever a sample is collected information will be recorded on a Soil Sampling Record (see Attachment A). The type of sampling equipment will be noted, along with sample time, sample description (in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System), sample depth, and volume and number of containers. Samples will be labeled uniquely and sequentially; as an example NWW -S5- 090704, where: NWW stands for North Wind's Weir. S5 stands for the fifth soil sample collected. 090704 stands for the month, day, and year the sample was collected; in this example September 7, 2004. Field duplicates will receive a blind and unique sample designation. Each sample location will be documented on the Daily Field Investigation Form relative to a landmark at the site using a measuring tape or other measuring device. The sample location will be plotted in the field on a scaled site map. . P:U(C Said We*teWonh Wind's Weir CAP.Norlh Wind. Weir SAP (2).doc 6 -2 Section 7 Equipment Decontamination and Waste Control Equipment decontamination and waste control during sampling activities is important to prevent the spread of contaminants, to ensure that no cross contamination occurs during sampling, and to ensure integrity of the work. Specifically, the main objectives are to: • Contain contaminated soil and water on the site so that work performed does not cause the spread of hazardous constituents within or off the site. • Decontaminate excavation and sampling equipment so that hazardous constituents are not introduced into the subsurface or samples through cross contamination. • Dispose of contaminated soil, debris, and water with contaminated products resulting from cleanup action activities. 7.1 Equipment Decontamination The following decontamination procedures will be used on soil sampling equipment. Equipment will be decontaminated prior to and after each use. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: PA KC Solid WasteNo hh Wind. wait CAPOlorth wind'. Wait SAP (2).doe Rinse and pre -clean in potable water. Wash in solution of laboratory grade, nonphosphate -based soap and potable water. Dip rinse in potable water. Rinse with N- propyl alcohol (if heavy staining is present in soil). Rinse with distilled water. Place on dean polyethylene sheeting to drain and air dry. Solutions will be renewed as needed. Sponges and nylon scrubbers will be used during Steps 1 through 3. Equipment will be air dried, if possible, and held in clean plastic bags between use. 7.2 Waste Control Water generated during soil sampling equipment decontamination will be returned to the excavation. Other waste generated during soil sampling (rubber gloves, paper towels, etc.) will be placed in plastic garbage bags and sealed shut. The garbage bags will be placed in a commercial waste collection container at an appropriate location for ultimate disposal in a sanitary landfill. 7 -1 c- Section 8 References CDM, 2004. Environmental Site Assessment Report, North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Site, 11025 Pacific Highway South, Project #19897 - 42526, Tukwila, Washington. June 2004. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Collecting and Preparing Soil Samples for VOC Analysis. Implementation Memorandum #5. June 2004. PAKC Solid WuuNWorth Winds Weir CAPNonh Wind's Weir SAP (2).doe 8-1 CDM Distribution 5 Copies P:U(C Solid Wags Worth Wind's Weir CAP%North Moire Wok SAP (2).doe King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-3855 Attention: Mr. Jon Hanson rr7 r rrt 177.1 ra,rt wri 771 rin 7 11161 Mtn MN 0 N DM P: \19897 \42526 \Tosk -2\ Fig -1 riehlepj , :.9 N , • •" � • A i r +.. \ ' >, r '. y ~' i <' +X 71 44, _� ■ rl .t A X �� . ` . ^S 1 X • �+ X ` h - -10[3 \ ti J3- Cj•, -107 ♦ . }: ** • • t X 1 JS —�? z -1 Ci •� MW 03 * -0H -104 : ! !�` F3 -3 * r `� ! X 4 ,, X • 4' ' r • Fj r, . S y Y 4,x . , v ♦ v' a �. • �� • : FO k1' K -- ... -. —, n '. . j TANF A ' REA X �� • A-t C v ` +• ' ' '% ' 1 4, • X �.• • te a ■•• 03-0H— 106 — T • i X 10/01/04 10:29:20 — 1 t5 `a' '1 , Ti � - � Lill 1 � %I y STREET 12:56:13 KING COUNTY / NORTH WIND WEIR SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON X ‘.• a;k .N, 4 X ' • 1 • * * i' 3, • • v ^, ', LEGEND ESTIMATED EXCAVATION LIMIT A-1* SOIL BORING LOCATIONS, CDM, 2004 MWA -9 * GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS, CDM, 2004 03 —BH -101 0 TEST PIT LOCATIONS, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 2003 B -1 SOIL BORING LOCATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC., 2001 X PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION 1" = 80' 40 0 80 Figure No. 1 Estimated Area Containing TPH In Soil Greater Than 200 mg /kg P: \19897 \42526 \Task -2\ CDM t 1 X X ,, ♦ sw, • f� X / ,g j ,j ♦+ g ESTIMATED ,�• o� ; I 1 r r a� x � � EXCAVATION A , ; X: B • LIMIT IPA t , TV/ r d 4" X A- 4 t ♦+ •,-.:.,,, ; • . LEGEND �•♦ ♦♦ ' ♦ � ` X ._.. fi __ - - -..._ LOCATIONS, . ♦ ♦♦ 0,7 3t i . 1 C >i5 ♦.te r ♦ /, '. :j i i ti . Fig -2 8 -3 X X -✓. UND!"IiGROUND \; '• ' ♦ TANK ARE A X L I X ♦♦ ♦ ►•� 10/01/04 10:32:26 SOUTH 1 12TH STREET t'' -` - : k._1 ,kifitX X•4 • 03- yH.._103 ♦ ri 4 N. ♦♦ . .. .e'.: ' ♦� X . X ♦ 4♦ 4t X • 13:12:23 riehtepj X t� -b`-�X 03 -1i3 •-1 04, 1, 0 1Y17' KING COUNTY / NORTH WIND WEIR SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON MWA -9 * GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS, CDM, 2004 03 -8H -101 • TEST PIT LOCATIONS, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 2003 8 -1 a SOIL BORING LOCATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC., 2001 X PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION 1" = 80' 40 0 80 Figure No. 2 Estimated Area Containing TPH In Soil Less Than 200 mg /kg Attachment A CDM Field Forms PVC Solid Waste \ North Winds Weir CAANorth Winds Weir SAP (2).doe Project: Project No.: Location: Date: Equipment Rental: Company: To: Equipment Hours: F.E. Time from: to: By: Visitors: Attachments: Distribution: Rev. 2002 FIELD INVESTIGATION DAILY REPORT OContinued Initial Sheet of forms\fieldlfield daily investigation report ev.01 /02 SOIL SAMPLING RECORD Sheet of forms‘f IeldlsoA sampling record. p65 F t E t Project Project Weather Date No. Sampled By . Reviewed By o Sample ID Time Collected LOCATIO? Location . Depth Surface Elevation (feet) 1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION l SAMPLING Sampling Method Container Composited ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes' ❑ No ❑ Yes • ❑ No Cooled By Soil Description/ Classification • Odor Head Space Analysis Instrument Background Reading • NOIlISOdSIO Split • Name Organization Duplicate No. Archive ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No .❑ Yes ❑ No CDM Lab ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ' ❑Yes ❑ No Other (Describe) Name of Analytical Lab Date Sent Delivery Method Chain -of- Custody No. Comments . ev.01 /02 SOIL SAMPLING RECORD Sheet of forms‘f IeldlsoA sampling record. p65 F t E t CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Additional Comments VOLATILES SURVEILLANCE Page of Date Project Job No. Weather Conditions Measured By Instruments (model and serial #) Calibration Time Station Location Depth Parameter Background Reading Comments field \volsurv.p65 8-2001 Company: Rev :rr ^d by /DatR* OnSite Environmental Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street • Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: (425) 883 -3881 • Fax: (425) 885 -4603 Chain of Custody Page omgan Project Number: Project Name: Project Manager: Sampled by: Relinquished by Received by Relinquished by Received by Relinquished by Received by Laboratory Number: atoppm wit14i94 rep ip., Attachment B OnSite Environmental, Inc. Precision Control Limits and Analytical Method MDLs /PQLs On Site Environmental Inc. Control Limits Department GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles GC /MS Semivolatiles Method 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs 8270 -SIM PAHs Type Matrix MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil MS /MSD Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Sod Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Spike Blank Soil Surrogate Soil Surrogate Soil Surrogate Soil Analyte Naphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3- c,d)pyrene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Naphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3- c,d)pyrene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Nitrobenzene -d5 2- Fluorobiphenyl Terphenyl -d 14 LCL UCL RPD Effect Start Effect Stop 30 115 20 01/19/04 46 125 22 01/19/04 40 119 22 01/19/04 50 133 17 01/19/04 48 128 19 01/19/04 53 134 29 01/19/04 50 143 17 01/19/04 44 139 19 01/19/04 62 129 13 01/19/04 42 127 14 01/19/04 57 132 17 01/19/04 57 131 15 01/19/04 59 132 15 01/19/04 55 135 16 01/19/04 36 146 16 01/19/04 42 140 17 01/19/04 39 96 20 01/19/04 47 105 22 01/19/04 40 99 22 01/19/04 48 111 17 01/19/04 49 112 19 01/19/04 55 121 29 01/19/04 59 126 17 01/19/04 55 124 19 01/19/04 60 120 13 01/19/04 48 115 14 01/19/04 61 123 17 01/19/04 62 119 15 01/19/04 59 125 15 01/19/04 56 127 16 01/19/04 40 121 16 01/19/04 49 131 17 01/19/04 27 107 n/a 07/24/03 33 100 n/a 07/24/03 55 106 n/a 07/24/03 OnSite Environmental Inc. Mobile Lab MDL /PQL Soil Soil Soil Water Water Water NWTPH- Gx/BTEX (8021) MDL PQL Units MDL PQL Units Gasoline 0.830 5.0 ppm 17.6 100 ppb Benzene 0.00546 0.010 ppm 0.0479 1.0 ppb Toluene 0.0109 0.050 ppm 0.0670 1.0 ppb Ethylbenzene 0.00584 0.050 ppm 0.153 1.0 ppb m,p- Xylene 0.0141 0.050 ppm 0.153 1.0 ppb o- Xylene 0.00363 0.050 ppm 0.0637 1.0 ppb Soil Soil Soil Water Water Water NWTPH -Dx MDL PQL Units MDL PQL Units Diesel Fuel #2 1.95 25 ppm 0.0433 0.25 ppm Lube Oil 6.63 50 ppm 0.161 0.40 ppm On Site Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCUPQL PAHs Y" Method 8270 SiM 2-Nitrophenol , • 2,4-Dich iorop h enol . e • !ts Benzoic acid Naphthalene. •.- FleicaCI11protUt6dieP „ • 4.90lor4 Hexachiorocyclopentadiene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2-Chloronaphthaiene 0.0107 0.067 ppm ppb ;6:0613 ppb,' . Open 2 , * p r 3 p 13 b 1:) :0933 1 PP 2 0,0088 , 0. Acenaphthene 2,4-Dinitrophenol Dibenzofuran ••••, 41,11#001:) Fluorene Diethylphthalate Soil Soil . Soil. - U MDL PQL - Wate W ater • 91- ; Uni 0.0125 0.33 ppm 0.178 5.0 ppb 0.00795 0.033 ppm 0.166 1.0 ppb 0.0137 0.033 ppm 0 .• 0100838 0.033 ppm 0.137 5.0 ppb 0.0215 0.5 ppm 0.175 25 b 0.0150 0.033 ppm 0.106 1 0.0116 0.033 ppm y: ppb Q.0160 0.033 ppm 0.187 1.0 ; -"r ppb 11& : rr •:• e , ppm ppb 6;ob _ 0 0.0870 .1'0 10 ppb 0.0161, 0.067 ppm 0.131 2.0 ppb 0.00899 0.067 ppm 0.162 2.0 ...„ n 0242 2.0 ppb , pp 0 0:03 PPPPI 228 2.94 25 PP - 0. - 50 ppb 0102 rn' 0'745 ppb .0a3 ppm ' O' 0 PP PPrn 0.187 ppb 0:0126' PPni 0.276 ppb ppm 0,08 1 .0 ppb 0 P 0.33- 0,0u 1.0 P 1.0 ppb :137ti ppb • ppm 0 . 107 ppm 1 b 0.33 ;‘. • 7 . • . . 1. • o`..0064"1.): r ppm 0.20 0:0 .0:633 4, 10 ppb 4-Bromophenyl-ptlenylether Hexachlorobenzene , 0:0111 0.033 ppm 0.189 1.0 ppb pentaptIlorpplienel 0.0104 0.5' ' ppm 0.230 5.0 ppb Pbenentliren67 , 0. pp m ' 033 PP 0.134 1.0 'ppb F rgiovoq rigmt 91 "' 0 41, palm tor!!! OnSite Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL /PQL Semivolatiles by- Method 8. An iline Fr bis(rchloroethyl) ether`' Phenol 2',Chlorophenol 4 a 1,3 Dichlorob 1,4- Dichl 1,2= Dichlorobenzene Benzyl alcohol bis(2 Chl 2 Methylphenol loroet He x ac hhane; N- t N it ro s -d n propylamm 4 M `e nol � ` k . Ni robenzen e Isophorone ppb ' ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb pp,b PAHs by Method' Naphthalene '; 2,M eth y lnaph thalene 1 `Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthyl,ene A cenaphthe a FIuorene, `` Phenanthren Anttracene Fluoranth Pyrene Benzo[b] C Benzo[b] Benzo[k ]fluoran Benzo[a]pyrene Indeno[1,23 c Dibenz[a,hjanthracen Benzo[g,h 03 • . 01;30 0 ...6' 03 01'1 0 033 .0147 6.03 .0108, -..:, 0 : ' ater .1 �., 0.0933 0.184 0.117:•, ater Water nits pb 1.0 _ r..':A1W OnSite Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL /PQL PAHs by Method;8270 SI Anthracene 'Carbazole DI n ,butyl phthaia Fluoranthene c£ ` Be zidine Pyrene" ,Butylbenz 1phthalate; 3,3' Drchiorobenzidine Benzo[a]anthracene Chrysene , bis(2 - Ethyihexyl)phthatate' Di n - octylphthalatet', Benzo[b]fluoranthene; Benio[k]fluoranthene Benzo[a]pyrene I ndeno[1,2,3 c,d] pyrer `Dibenz[ah]anthracene Benzo[g,li ] erylene R Pesticides by Method 8 0 alpha BIHC gamma B I-' beta-BHC „ '_ delta -BHC Heptbchlo Adrift Heptachlor gamma Chlordan alpha Chlordane; 4,4' -DDE; Endosulfa Dieldrin Endrin 4;4 Endosulfan I 131 u. ��-• titer Water" Water nits 0 00508 0 005 .000375 0:005 .000854 '0.005 ,000380 0:005 , 000574 '„2,005 .pooai 005 0'k' 0 0 0050 1, 0 010 . 000307'. 0 010 1 .000307 0 010' 000295 0 00 50 000257 r 0 010 000 U 01 1 ,000426 0.010 1. 000427: '0.010 titer flits .000338 0.0050 ': ppb 000271 0.0050 ▪ 000683 0 0050' ppb ▪ 00134 .:0 0050 .000320 0 0050. .000206 0.005 000263 0 .005 0002740 005 .000275;. 0 0050; 00304 t) 0050 .000289 .0.0050 000352 $ ;Q 0050 ppb 0 000472 0.0050* 0 00100 0.0050 ppb ._ PPm 0,000319 , 0.0050 , ; ppb On Site Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL/PQL PCBs #y Method d 8082 PCBs DB / /DBCPb Method D BC P .005 P \ gip' ppb d ppb p \ p . ,.... . . :� W ater Water QL Units 100 ppb M et 'EniinsulfanSUIrnt 3n r \ko e �bc�sb ala o camb 7PP_ §P c op) 2,4-0 ƒetclo 2,4,S=TP:' 4 DB p %s# AK1 Gasoline }F ater ater Water nits mo \ Soil : Water \ \Wa Water ? « ° Water .... ,... . . .. a .. a ..a «..�. AK p210 / )L 99L Units MDL \ \PQL /: ?Uni Diesel y . . . . . . ..... 4seR ' J7 10 p m' 0.0386 ' : a5 \? �p m :. � a m .. . . . . .. . polo .a � . . ... . ... . ( .z y ©� ..2 ..�,.,.. Ng ^ ^r\ ~ «� PAHs y WTPH $x G asoline 9asolirlkIP1 Gasoline (Fl boaAs :M1BE \ gene Io u n \ hylb n e kyles e kyle e' m2m NM Diesel L o klisb {Mk §o 72� cloiu q% h ^ h I 6mkh n % \ \ \ \� \\ \ \ � x . . . Vi nyl NinYrChlOri Bromometban :N¢rotane p »rv _ . � a . m khoro oomeh n 1, qcl o k § \ m domkh n C arbon kulf e M ethylene §ho de § an) ethyl t §tyl, r 2 ) 1-77:7) OnSite Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCUPQL . a . w � = .. vz.a..,... oil Wae Wae p b ppb ppb P ppb Water 'Units ƒPrn- Pb P �^ 2 2 ` ppb .0 ppb 1 0 ppb 0,20 \ \p p 1.0 \' § ppb w. 0.20 ppb 0.20 ppb - � OnSite Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL /PQL PAHsb yMethod8270S 1,1 �-Dichloroethane ` " Vinyl'Acetat 2,2- Dichloropropani (cis)' I ,2 Dichloroetben ?=. i Bromochloromet Chloroform =` x' 1,1,1 Carbon Tetrachlon` 1,1 Dichloropropen Benzene, 1,2 Dichloroethane Tnchloroethene 1,2= Dichloropropan Dibromomethane <x Bromodichloromethan 2 Chloroethyl V Ether (cis); 1,3 Dichloropropene_;:. Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ' "` Toluene ichlo e ro �oetha then 0ropan iromethan ethane ne achloroethane' e o- Xylene Styrene Bromoform Isopropylbenzene '; Bromobenzene ;; .' oil ... Soil Units p ater L 0 0,0584 ppb 0.0580 ppb 0.140 0 40 ppb . 0.0464 0 20 ppb 0.0649 0.20 ppb 0.108 1.0 �. ppb 0.0425 0 2 0 ppb 0.0594 '0.20 .! ater Water Units . pb, ppb . ppb ppb. ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ragn trIn mos tw'n 11. Mt rrl OnSite Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab Redmond, WA MCL/PQL PA Hs by.Methodi8270 St 1,1 ,2 2 Tetrachioroethane 1 ,2,3.Tnchloropropane ra Propylbe[zene 2 Chlorotoluene` 4 Chlorotoluene `. ° 1 ;3,5= T t&t-Butylbenzene 1,2,4- Tnmethylbenzene . sec- Butylbenzene . 1,3- Dichlorobenzen •p- Isopropyltoluene I,4- Dichlorobenzene `1,2-Dichlorobenzene n Butylbenzene 1,2- Dibrorno- 3- chioropropan 1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 'Naphthalene 1,2,3- TnChlorof enter ICP Metals 'by Method 200 7/601 Aluminum 237 312 - ,° ''_ Aluminum 300 215x ; r i S;• Antimony 206 834 Antimony 217 58 Arsenic 18898 Arsenic 193.96 Barium 455 Beryllium 234861. Beryllium 313 42 Boron 249‘.678 . Boron 249:772 Cadmium:2 502 Cadmium 22880 Calcium 317.933 0.00797 , 0.00454 1;07 0,0821 0.0699 0.0720 3:90 = ppm ppm ppm :'Ppm ppm ppm ppm ater. ' Water nits Pb= Water nits MDL PQL • b 19.4 , 100 ppb 9.03'? 100 ppb ppb' 27.6 ` 100 ppb ppb;." 37.9 100 ppb ppb 26.9 . X200 ppb ppb 50.0 ;200., ppb ppb 0.153 50 ppb 0.219 11 ppb 0.120 10 ppb 0.125 11 ppb 0.102 10 ppb 3.75 110 ppb 2.31 100 ppb 1.05, 110 " `' ppb 1.24 100 ppb 1.29 .. 11 ppb 1.39 10 ppb 2.24 11 ppb 1.60 10 ppb 95.3 1100 ppb 3.88. 1000 ppb Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved On Site Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL/PQL r*Hibiv04ethod C hromium Copper 324.757 Copper 1e6n259:§‘ Lead 220.353 Magnesium 279.07 "Mariganese'257.61::"'% Molybdenum 202.032. NiCkel=231:604:.;.„ ' Potassium 766.491 Selenium 196.026 Silver 328 .068 Strontium : Sodium 5 '- Thallium ' '35; * Th ' .1u*42 1 1 ThalliUrn'a7;;5 2's Tin.189,92 Titanium 34.41 Vaned Vanadium Zinc 206 Zinc,213:857 ICP/MS ;ti as. 206.8/60-,;::::'- AluMinUrn%!":"•".„ • Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt • r • Copper „''': • • 1. • Lead • • flrn 3.32 5.0 6:0296`-' 6.0 0.0726 50 .0:130. 40:50 14 '` ',2.6, .5 Soil Water Units MDL pply), pm 4.09 , ; 7 PPm 1 , pm 3.17 18.4 " 28;6 , ppm 29.7 Water Water S QL - Units 1 ppb 1 10 ppb ppb 5.33 10, ppb ppb 1.60 10 ppb ppb 3.58 10 ppb ppb 2.90 50 ppb pr)b', , 25.1 100 ppb 1100 DOb 31.9 1000 ppb 0.211 10 ppb ppm 1 7 02 - nob 100 ppm 8.03 56 0'361 110 ppb 5.57 ppb ppm 80.6 1100 ppb 47.9 ppb nnm 220 nnh 44.1 200 = rrl 9 06 ppb 1000 b 0.636' `` 50 ppm 0.0233 0.50 ppm 0.166 2.90 5.0 ppm 101 110 ppb 38.2 100 13.5 1 1100 ppb 5.67 1000 ppb pp 76. 100 ppb 3.93 5.0 ppm 26.6 110 ppb 0.134 0.50 ppm 0.250 11 0.00705 2.5 ppm 0.249 1.1 On Site Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL/PQL Nitrite/Nitrite Nitre:gen by Method 353,, Nitrate" (NO3= Nitrite (r,s1027 Sulfate Method 375.' Sulfate .•$ 'Hexaialent by M�thod 719 :11exa • Soil • Soil MDL PaL 0.0883 0.50 0.00704 5.0 - 0.0166 0,13269 •10 0.50 0.0300, • ' 0.50 0.00390 • 0:0110 5.0 0.0110 ,• ,5.0 ;00897- 0.50 :109 -2.5 Soil Soil Soil Water Water Water MDL PQL. Units MDL PQL Units 0.0134 0.25 ppb 0.0428 0.50 ppb Soil Soil Soil Water •. Water Water MDL. PQL Units MDL PQL . Units Soil Soil Soil Water Water Water Units MDL POL . Units • • n/a - �00495 • • QL Units .0 ppm • " .„. • ....• oil Soil- Water Water: , Water 'QL Units s'. • MDL PQL ' Units nfa 0.00348 0.010 ppm n/a n/a ,, 0 . 00408 0.010 • ppm Soil - Water Water Water MDL - Units MDL PQL Units OnSite Environmental Inc. Fixed Lab - Redmond, WA MCL /PQL PAHsby Method 8270 pi A mmonia (NH3- Total Susbende Solids Total Suspended Solids' HEM/NPM b HEM Mr" MN Om MN Poi 0 "Nivi rot, gr,1 oil. Soil Water Water. Water __. Units PPm — r- no. �..�` - 1 MI WM ..rte ] r" tP CDM Appendix B Project Health and Safety Plan PWC sad Watt leWedh Wears Weir CAPProdh Wears Weir CAP Updated l01-0&d� HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION SITE September 24, 2004 Prepared by: King County DNRP Solid Waste Division Prepared for: King County DNRP Water and Land Resources Division 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND 2.0 SITE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION 2.1 Work Zones 5.0 PERSONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT 5.1 Levels of Protection 5.2 Required Equipment 6.0 SITE MONITORING AND ACTION LEVELS 6.1 Airborne Dust 6.2 Volatile Organic Compounds 6.3 Monitoring Equipment Calibration Table Title 1 Site Exposure Assessment 2 Action Levels for Personal Protection 2 Dust Exposure Calculation 10/4/04 P:UCC SOLID WASTEVORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPWWW HSPLAN.DOC 11 LIST OF TABLES table of contents Page 1.2 Health and safety plan applicability and adherence 2 1.3 Responsible individuals 4 4 6 2.2 Site Security 6 3.0 SAFETY RULES AND PROCEDURES 6 3.1 Safety Rules 7 3.2 Safety Procedures 7 4.0 POTENTIAL SITE HAZARDS AND RISKS 10 4.1 Exposure to Hazardous Substances 10 4.2 Physical Hazards 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 7.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 14 7.1 Reporting/Notification Procedures 14 7.2 Fire 16 7.3 Site Evaluation and Evacuation 17 8.0 TRAINING 17 1.0 INTRODUCTION This health and safety plan presents the protocols that will be required to provide for worker health and safety during excavation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil at the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration site located at 11025 Pacific Highway South in Tukwila, Washington (parcel tax identification numbers 04230499114 and 04230499118). This plan was prepared by James Neely, CIH from the King County Solid Waste Division. The plan presents the project health and safety organization, safety rules and procedures; description of potential site hazards and risks; description of levels of personal protection and required equipment; air monitoring procedures; emergency response information; and training requirements. This plan is based on the most current knowledge of existing site conditions. The requirements outlined in this plan are considered the minimum health and safety requirements due to potential site contamination. All fieldwork will be performed in accordance with worker health and safety regulations for hazardous waste site operations, as specified in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 29 CFR 1910.120, and Washington State Labor and Industry regulations, WAC 296 -62 -300. This plan does not address physical worker safety issues that may be associated with construction activities, such as excavation, trenching, and shoring covered in WAC 296 -155. 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND The County has acquired the 2.59 -acre property for a salmon restoration project that will generate 2 acres of intertidal habitat aiding salmonid (Onchorhyncus) transition to saltwater. The project is a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and several local governments. Proposed construction activities at the North Wind's Weir site include soil excavation to allow Duwamish River water to flow freely in and out of a constructed slough with tidal fluctuations, and enhancement and stabilization of habitat by planting typical emergent vegetation, native trees, and shrubs, and placement of woody debris. The purpose of the planned environmental restoration activities is to remove impacted material. Field activities covered by this health and safety plan include excavation and removal of soils impacted by total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), along with associated soil sampling for _waste analysis and cleanup confirmation purposes. A variety of environmental investigations have been conducted at the site, including: a Phase 1 ESA completed by Environmental Associates, Inc. in April 2001; a Phase 2 soil and groundwater investigation by Environmental Associates, Inc. in May 2001; a Phase 2 soil investigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in June 2003; and a Phase 2 soil and groundwater investigation by Camp 10/4/04 PAC SOLID WASTE\NORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPWWW HSPLAN.DOC 1 Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) in April 2004. Diesel- and oil -range TPH is the primary compound encountered at the site and is generally found in shallow soils (upper 5 to 10 feet) along the site perimeter adjacent to the Duwamish River and along the northern site border extending to the northeast corner. The distribution of TPH is believed to be related to areas used while the site was an auto salvage yard. No elevated TPH was identified in borings completed in the vicinity of previously removed underground storage tanks (USTs). Only two soil samples contained concentrations above Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup levels. These included motor oil -range TPH at 2,300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and total carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs) at 0.105 mg/kg. Only one groundwater sample contained concentrations above Method A cleanup levels (arsenic at 9.42 micrograms per liter). However, the occurrence of arsenic is believed to be associated with background conditions in the site vicinity. The assessment results indicate only limited soil cleanup is necessary to bring the site into compliance with MTCA. The arsenic in groundwater is not at a concentration that would warrant cleanup and may represent natural background concentrations. As discussed, TPH and PAHs are expected to be the most frequently encountered constituents of concern at the site. Table 1 lists the potential constituents of concern, with their maximum previously detected concentrations at the site and health -based exposure information. It should be noted that the symptoms listed as a result of exposure are generally associated with acute (short-term) exposures to high concentrations of a constituent. Such symptoms may not be associated with the lower level exposure that would be the most likely exposure scenario encountered during site work. However, lack of these symptoms does not indicate that exposure is not occurring. Also, symptoms of exposure are not available for some of the constituents. Therefore, use of prescribed protective equipment and monitoring instruments in accordance with this plan is required in order for exposure to these constituents to be kept as low as possible. 1.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN APPLICABILITY AND ADHERENCE All individuals performing fieldwork must read, understand, and comply with this health and safety plan prior to undertaking field activities. Table 2 includes an acknowledgement form to be completed by all employees covered by this plan. If any information presented in this plan is unclear, the reader should contact the site safety officer for clarification prior to participating in any field activity. Similarly, all consultants and contractors for King County must prepare their own health and safety plan that is at least as protective as this plan; they may also adopt this plan as minimum requirements for. work activities. Failure to comply with the requirements of this plan is grounds for 10/4104 P:UCC SOLID WASTE\NORTH WINDS WEIR CAPNiWW HSPLAN.DOC 2 f { (b) (c) (d) (e) TABLE 1 SITE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION PROJECT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Maximum Concentration Detected Onsite Hazardous Material/ Chemical Constituent Organic Chemicals Acenaphthene Acenanaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(a)pyrene Chrysene 0.058 Ethylbenzene Fluoranthene 0.10 Methyl Napthalene 0.075 Naphthalene PCBs 0.089 Phenanthrene 0.18 Pyrene TPH- Diesel TPH -Motor Oil TPH- Gasoline Tetrachloroethene Soil Groundwater (mg /kg) (mg /L) 0.032 0.021 0.0003 0.00020 0 ND ND ND ND 0.94 ND ND 0.04 1.2 ND 0.00062 5.0 ND NA 0.00010 ND 1,300 5 0.054 0.068 0.051 0.056 0.056 0.12 2,300 5 28 5 NA 0.0007 NA = not analyzed. 10N 21ti4rP '�@filP*asaWonh Wind's Weir CAPNNWW HSPlan.doc TLV(b) DNA DNA 0.2 mg/m 0.2 mg /rn'® 0.2 mg/m DNA DNA 0.2 mg /m'4) 0.2 mg/m 100 ppm DNA DNA 10 ppm 0.5 mg /m' 0.2 ppm® DNA DNA DNA DNA PPm PEL(c) DNA DNA 0.2 mg/m 0.2 mg/m 0.2 mg/m DNA DNA 0.2 mg /m'lal 0.2 mg/m 100 ppm DNA DNA 10 ppm 0.5 mg /m' 0.2 ppm® DNA DNA IDLH(d) DNA DNA DNA 80 mg /m' 80 mg /m' DNA DNA 80 mg /m' 80 mg /m' 800 ppm DNA DNA 250 ppm 5.0 mg /m' DNA DNA DNA DNA DNA DNA DNA ppm 0 ppm Exposure Routes() DNA DNA Inh, Ing, Abs, Con Inh, Con Inh, Con DNA DNA Inh, Con Inh, Con Inh, Ing, Con DNA Inh, Abs, Ing, Con Inh, Abs, Ing, Con Inh, Abs, Ing, Con Inh, Ing, Abs, Con DNA Inh, Con Inh, Con Inh, Con Inh, Abs, lug, Con 3 TLV = Threshold limit value, as defined by the American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (1994). PEL = Permissible exposure limit, as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1995). IDLH = immediately dangerous to life and health (NIOSH). Exposure route codes: Inh = inhalation; Ing = ingestion; Con = skin and /or eye contact; Abs = skin absorption. Symptoms of Exposure DNA DNA DNA Dermatitis, bronchitis Dermatitis, bronchitis DNA DNA Dermatitis, bronchitis Dermatitis, bronchitis Irritated eyes, headache DNA Eye irritation Eye irritation, vomiting Eye, nose, throat, chloracne Skin photosensitization DNA Eye irritation, Nausea, headache, skin irritation Eye irritation, Nausea, headache, skin irritation Eye irritation, Nausea, headache, skin irritation Eye, skin irrigation; fatigue; liver damage immediate removal from the project site. Copies of an acknowledgment form similar to that provided as Table 2 must be provided to King County's site health and safety officer before commencement of field activities. This plan is flexible, and allows unanticipated site - specific problems to be addressed, while providing adequate and suitable worker protection. The plan may be modified at any time, based on the judgment of the respective site safety officer or the project manager, as appropriate. The site safety officer may make minor changes to the plan regarding day - to-day activities (e.g., location of decontamination station, etc.). Substantive changes to procedures (e.g., monitoring frequency, etc.) must also receive the concurrence of both the site safety officer and the project manager. Any modifications to the plan will be presented to the project field team during a safety briefing. Activities conducted as part of this investigation shall be conducted without creating health and safety risks for nearby workers or the public. All onsite personnel shall be attentive to the potential for release of contaminated materials associated with field activities and shall immediately bring all such matters to the attention of the appropriate site safety officer. Decontamination procedures and other elements of the field procedures (e.g., access to/from work areas by heavy equipment) have been developed to be protective of both worker and public health and safety. 1.3 RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS Safety oversight during the field investigations will be the primary responsibility of the King County project manager Jon Hanson, construction supervisor Jerry Tracy and the designated site health and safety officer (also Jerry Tracy). The site safety officer, or designee, will be present at the site at all times during field activities related to the investigation. 2.0 SITE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION The distribution of contamination at the site is nonuniform in nature and as excavation occurs the zones of contaminated soil will decrease. These factors preclude the use of a static work area boundary; rather, the boundary will change as work progresses. The level of protection must be upgraded if monitoring conducted during work activities indicates (see Section 6.0 for site monitoring and action levels). Conversely, the designated level of protection may be downgraded if monitoring data obtained during work activities indicate that such a downgrade is appropriate. Levels of protection are discussed in more detail in Section 5.0. 10/4/2004 P:UCC Solid WasteNlorth Wind's Weir CAPWWW HSPlan.doc 4 TABLE 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I have read the attached Health and Safety Plan for the work at the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration site. I have discussed any questions which I have regarding these materials with my supervisor, and I understand the requirements of the health and safety plan. Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Employee Date Site Safety Officer Date 10/4/04 P:\KC SOLID WASTEWORTH WINDS WEIR CAPINWW HSPLAN.DOC 5 2.1 WORK ZONES On a daily basis, each excavation work area will be divided into an exclusion zone, a contamination reduction zone, and a support zone. Marking tape, cones, and other visual cues will be used to help delineate the work zones. • Exclusion Zone: The exclusion zone will be defined as the area within a 30 -ft radius of where excavation activities are being conducted. Only authorized field personnel will be allowed in each exclusion zone. The initial level of protection required in the exclusion zone may be adjusted as conditions change. • Contamination Reduction Zone: All personnel and equipment will leave the exclusion zone through a contamination reduction zone. Both personnel and equipment decontamination will occur in this zone to prevent the transfer of contaminants to the support zone (decontamination procedures are specified in Section 3.2.3). Soil hauling trucks will also be stationed in the support zone so that they can be loaded by the excavators working in the exclusion zone. Truck drivers will stay in their vehicles during loading. After loading is completed, a site worker will remove any contaminated soil that may have fallen on the truck body or wheels. The truck will then move into the support zone prior to the driver exiting to conduct tarping and final preparation for transport. • Support Zone: Located adjacent to the contamination reduction zone, the support zone includes clean equipment storage and personnel resting and eating facilities. Each work zone will be clearly identified to all field personnel. 2.2 SITE SECURITY Field activities are expected to occur in a restricted - access industrial area. If any work activities are conducted in areas with public access, the work area will be blocked off and posted. 3.0 SAFETY RULES AND PROCEDURES Safety is the responsibility of every individual involved in project efforts. Whether in the office or in the field, properly followed procedures are essential for personal safety and to minimize injuries or accidents involving equipment. Potential hazards while working at the terminal include, but are not limited to: • Exposure to toxic and/or hazardous chemicals • Physical hazards from sampling soil • Physical hazards from heavy equipment • Physical hazards from working conditions I0 /4/04 PAKC SOLID WASTEINORTH WIND'S WEIR CAP'.NWW HSPLAN.DOC 6 r 3.1 SAFETY RULES All personnel working in the field will follow the rules and procedures listed below: • No personnel will be admitted into an operational exclusion zone without safety equipment in proper working condition and requisite training. • All personnel must comply with the established safety procedures. Anyone working onsite for who does not comply with this health and safety plan or other approved health and safety plan may be immediately dismissed from the site. • Eating, drinldng, chewing gum or tobacco, smoking, or any practice that increases the probability of hand -to -mouth transfer and ingestion of material is prohibited in the exclusion zone. • Smoking or consumption of food and beverages is allowed only within designated areas in the support zones. • Protective clothing will be used whenever necessary and appropriate to minimize the risk of cross contamination. • The number of personnel and the amount of equipment in contaminated areas will be minimized to allow for efficient site operations. • Only trained and authorized personnel will collect samples. • Contact with contaminated or potentially contaminated material should be avoided. • Proper decontamination procedures must be followed before leaving an exclusion zone, unless medical emergencies dictate otherwise (Section 3.2.3). 3.2 SAFETY PROCEDURES Field personnel are required to follow certain safety procedures when leaving the support zone to enter the exclusion zone, and when exiting the exclusion zone. These safety procedures are described in the following sections. 3.2.1 LEAVING THE SUPPORT ZONE TO ENTER THE EXCLUSION ZONE The safety procedures to be followed when leaving the support zone to enter the exclusion zone include the following: • Finish eating and extinguish any smoking materials. • Check safety gear and equipment. Suit up as required to begin activities. • Measure and delineate exclusion zone (unless established previously). 10 /4/04 P:1KC SOLID WASTEINORTH WINDS WEIR CAP\NWW HSPLAN.DOC 7 Prior to beginning construction activities, review site information updates. These updates will be provided by the site safety officer and will provide important information concerning: • Expected hazards • Special conditions • Emergency medical information • Level of personal protection required 3.2.2 ACTIVITIES IN EXCLUSION ZONE The safety procedures to be used for activities in the exclusion zone include the following: • All activities will be conducted at a minimum of Level D (modified) (see Section 5). • Organic vapor respirators may be worn by trained and qualified individuals for additional comfort, but are not required to protect worker health and safety, unless air monitoring indicates otherwise. • Whenever possible, personnel will be stationed upwind of field activities capable of creating airborne contamination. • If any physical discomfort is experienced (e.g., abnormalities, nausea, lightheadedness), immediately stop work, tell the other team members, and leave the area. • If any personal protective equipment fails, immediately leave the area. • Immediately wipe off spills and dirt from equipment, sampling containers and portable monitoring equipment. 3.2.3 EXCLUSION ZONE EXIT DECONTAMINATION All personnel and equipment must be properly decontaminated before entering a support zone from an exclusion zone. All contaminated equipment and materials will leave only through the contamination reduction zone or will be contained onsite; any potentially contaminated materials to be stockpiled will be kept in designated, secure locations. 3.2.3.1 Routine Decontamination Procedures A personal and equipment decontamination area will be set up in the contamination reduction zone at the border of each exclusion zone. Prior to leaving the exclusion zone: • Personal protective equipment will be removed and washed and/or containerized prior to leaving the contaminant reduction zone. A biodegradable detergent will be used for wash 10/4/04 P:UCC SOLID WASTEWORTH WINDS WEIR CAPWWW HSPLAN.DOC 8 r t water. Personnel will wipe hands and face with pre- moistened disposable towels prior to eating or drinking. • Heavy equipment must be decontaminated prior to leaving the site, with particular care taken in decontaminating those parts of the heavy equipment that have come in direct contact with contaminants, such as tracks, tires, shovels, grapples, and scoops. High- pressure hot water cleaning will be used for these, aided by physical scrubbing with disposable brushes when necessary to loosen caked materials. All portions of the equipment, including the undercarriage, chassis, and cab, will also be inspected and cleaned as necessary. 3.2.3.2 Emergency Decontamination If a life - threatening injury occurs, decontamination of the injured employee should not interfere with treatment. Limited contact with contaminated clothing or skin is not expected to cause any health risks to emergency health care providers. 3.2.4 MANAGEMENT OF DECONTAMINATION - DERIVED WASTE Soil removed from vehicles and equipment will be added to the soil stockpile for eventual disposal. Personal protective equipment will be cleaned or collected for disposal as non - hazardous solid waste. Wash and rinse water will be generated in limited quantities and are not expected to contain significant levels of contamination. These liquids will be drained back onto the site. At least one confirmation cleanup soil sample will be collected from within the area where liquids are deposited. 3.2.5 HOUSEKEEPING Work areas will be kept as clean and orderly as possible at all times. Ordinary refuse and lightly soiled disposable protective clothing will be placed in suitable rubbish bins or trash containers at the site. Hoses, cords and other potential trip hazards will be properly stored. 3.2.6 VISITORS Authorized visitors will only be allowed to observe operations from the support zone or beyond, and must obey all instructions of the site safety officer. Site visitors who may enter the exclusion zone or decontamination area must possess appropriate health and safety equipment at the time of the visit, and have a health and safety plan at least as stringent as this plan, or adopt this plan as minimum requirements for site activities. 10/4/04 P:IKCSOLID WASTE\NORTH WINDS WEIRCAPWWW HSPLAN.DOC 9 4.0 POTENTIAL SITE HAZARDS AND RISKS Results of previous investigations of specific areas within the property have identified the presence of contaminants of potential concern. Maximum concentrations of substances detected in area soil and groundwater are summarized in Table 1, along with occupational exposure criteria, and potential exposure pathways of concern. The planned activities will also involve physical hazards inherent with working outside and in the presence of heavy equipment and chemical hazards from potential exposure to hazardous substances. These hazards and associated control measures are detailed below. Physical hazards are covered in limited detail. Employers engaged in construction activities are expected to have a program addressing construction safety in more detail. 4.1 EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES There is a potential for field personnel to become exposed to hazardous substances in the defined work areas. Dermal, inhalation, and incidental ingestion exposures pathways are possible. However, the general risk of exposure on the site is low. Soil excavation activities could lead to exposure through dermal contact during intrusive activities, such as excavation or soil sampling. Dermal protection, as described in Section 5.2, will, therefore, be required for all such activities. Volatilization of hydrocarbons is not expected to generate risk of exposure through inhalation, based on the relatively low concentrations of substances with significant vapor pressure, such as gasoline. Diesel and oil are the primary site contaminants. These substances are not highly volatile, and have relatively low toxicity. Incidental ingestion is also unlikely using the protocols established in this health and safety plan. 4.2 PHYSICAL HAZARDS Physical hazards within the work area may include working around excavation equipment, areas where truck traffic occurs, wet surfaces and high noise levels; controls are discussed below: • Excavator and truck operator visibility is limited, which presents a physical hazard to personnel while the excavator is in motion. Excavators and trucks must be equipped with operable backup alarms. Eye contact must be made with the heavy equipment and truck operators prior to moving in front of or behind the heavy equipment or trucks. • As with all field work sites, caution will be exercised to prevent slips on wet surfaces, stepping on sharp objects, tripping, etc. • Appropriate hearing protection (ear muffs or ear plugs with a noise reduction rating of at least 20 dBA) will be used if individuals work near high -noise generating equipment ( >85 dBA). 10/4/04 PARC SOLID WASTE NORTH WINDS WEIR CAP\NWW HSPLAN.DOC 10 r l r r I L Personal safety equipment is required within work areas where there is a potential for exposure to hazardous substances. Descriptions of the levels of protection and the required safety equipment for each level are provided in the following sections. 5.1 LEVELS OF PROTECTION (1984): 5.0 PERSONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT Levels of protection have been defined by the EPA in the EPA Standard Operating Guide, • Level A requires a fully encapsulating suit and full face self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a 5- minute, supplied air escape pack for the highest level of respiratory, skin, and eye protection. Level A is not anticipated at the terminal and, therefore, is not discussed further. • Level B requires maximum respiratory protection by the use of supplied air or a positive pressure SCBA. A 5- minute, supplied air escape pack is required while in Level B. Dermal protection is selected on the basis of anticipated hazards. Level B is not anticipated at the terminal and, therefore, is not discussed further. • Level C requires an air - purifying respirator that is specific to the contaminants of concern. The degree of dermal protection depends on anticipated hazards. • Level D is the basic work uniform modified for work at this site, as described in Section 5.2. 5.2 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT The level of protection designated for site work indicates the level of protection that should be initially used. Discovery of unexpected conditions may indicate that an upgrade in the level of protection is required. Level D protection (as modified based on task) is recommended for intrusive work (excavation within the exclusion zone) unless site monitoring indicates that an upgrade is necessary. The following sections define Level D (modified). As . noted previously, these levels of protection are not required for site activities outside of the exclusion zone that do not represent a reasonable risk of exposure. Qualified employees may also wear half -face air purifying respirators equipped with organic vapor cartridges for additional comfort against petroleum odors. However, this plan assumes that use will be for comfort purposes only. Should site conditions warrant the use of respirators a plan amendment will be developed. 10/4/04 P:VCC SOLID WASTE\NORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPINWW HSPLAN.DOC 11 5.2.1 LABORERS: • Clothing- One -piece disposable Tyvek coveralls, Employer - laundered work uniform, or rain gear. (Contaminated clothing shall not be worn beyond the decontamination zone). • PVC or nitrile inner - disposable gloves. • Neoprene and/or nitrile outer gloves. • Neoprene steel -toed and steel- shank, chemically resistant, impermeable outer boots or disposable boot covers. • Hard hat • Safety glasses with side shields 5.2.2 EXCAVATOR OPERATORS: • Neoprene steel -toed and steel- shank, chemically resistant, impermeable outer boots or disposable boot covers. • Hard hat • Safety glasses with side shields 5.2.3 SOIL SAMPLERS, SURVEYORS, PROJECT SUPERVISORS AND VISITORS: • PVC or nitrite disposable gloves. • Neoprene steel -toed and steel- shank, chemically resistant, impermeable outer boots or disposable boot covers. • Hard hat • Safety glasses with side shields 6.0 SITE MONITORING AND ACTION LEVELS Visual observations and air monitoring of the work area will be used to determine the effectiveness of the engineering controls, to re- evaluate levels of protection, and determine if conditions in the work area have changed. Air monitoring will be conducted during excavation and loading activities. Monitoring equipment will be inspected prior to work start-up. Failure of any of the monitoring equipment must be reported to the site health and safety officer immediately. Work in the exclusion zone is not to continue if equipment is not working properly. Action levels and associated control activities are presented in Table 3. 10/4/04 P:VCC SOLID WASTENNORTH WIND'S WEIR CAP\NWW HSPLAN.DOC 12 6.1 AIRBORNE DUST Polyaromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum hydrocarbons may be adsorbed to soil particles and inhaled if soil becomes dry and airborne. Visual observations will be used to monitor for airborne contaminants. If visible dust emissions are observed in the breathing zones for prolonged periods (greater than 5 minutes) dust controls such as wetting soils or covering stockpiled soils with tarps will be implemented. 6.2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS The designated site safety officer will have a photoionization detector (PID) onsite at all times that intrusive activities are conducted. During initial excavation activities in each area of the site, preliminary monitoring will be conducted at locations where employees may be present to confirm the level of protection needed for the planned activities. If initial readings are greater than background, PID readings will be taken at least hourly during intrusive work. The monitoring frequency will be increased to at least every 30 minutes if levels exceed 5 PPM in the breathing zone. If initial readings are less than the upwind background, routine monitoring need only be conducted if a significant hydrocarbon odor is noticed or if employees experience any type of discomfort. Action levels listed below are summarized in Table 3. Based on the types and concentrations of volatile contaminants found at the site (Table 1), the organic vapor action level for field activities is 10 ppm. This level is well below the permissible exposure limits for known site contaminants, and is designed to provide an adequate safety margin for limiting inhalation exposures. While monitoring with the PID, any consistent readings (5 minutes or longer) in an employee breathing zone that is greater than 10 ppm above the upwind background level will be the action level for donning half -face air purifying respirators equipped with organic vapor cartridges. Cartridges will be replaced after each day of use. 10 /4/04 P:UCC SOLID WASTEWORTH WINDS WEIR CAP\NWW HSPLAN.DOC 13 Monitoring Parameter Reading TABLE 3 ACTION LEVELS FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION NORTH WIND'S WIER • Organic Vapors 10/4/04 P:UCC SOLID WASTEWORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPINWW HSPLAN.DOC 14 PID reading >10 ppm in breathing zone for more than 5 minutes Airborne dust Visible dust in breathing zone of workers 6.3 MONITORING EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION 7.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 7.1 " REPORTING/NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES Action Upgrade to Level C with half -face respirator with organic vapor and HEPA cartridges Reduce dust via wetting or covering stockpiles The PID meter will be calibrated prior to each day's activity according to manufacturer's instruction. Calibration will be recorded in the health and safety logbook or field notes. Procedures to be used in cases of emergency response, including emergency reporting/notification, non -life threatening emergencies, fire, and site evaluation and evacuation, are provided in the following sections. In the case of any emergency, the site safety officer is to be notified immediately. If the situation is life threatening and notification of the site safety officer would delay emergency response, field personnel may initiate the appropriate emergency contacts prior to notifying the site safety officer. The site safety officer will then initiate contacts as follows: t 1•y 1. Call appropriate emergency services numbers (ambulance, fire, etc.) if not already done and provide the following information: ✓ Name and location of person reporting ✓ Location of accident/incident ✓ Name and affiliation of injured party F Description of injuries ✓ Status of medical aid effort F Details of any chemicals involved F Summary of the accident, including the suspected cause and the time it occurred ✓ Temporary control measures taken to minimize further risk. 2. Call the WLRD project manager and provide information noted in Item 1 above. 3. The site safety officer will complete a written accident/incident report within 24 hours, sending copies to the WLRD project manager. Resources to be used in cases of emergency include: • List of Emergency Contacts and Phone Numbers: • Medical, Fire or other Emergency: Dial 911 • Trauma Center: Harborview Hospital 325 Ninth Avenue; Seattle, WA; 206 - 731 -3000 • Department of Ecology Spill Response: 425- 649 -7000 • WLRD Project Manager: Jon Hanson: 206 - 296 -1966 • Roads Site Supervisor: Jerry Tracy: 206- 296 -8179 • Site Safety Officer: Jerry Tracy: 206 - 296 -8179 • King County Safety Division: 206 - 296 -0510 • Nearest Phone: Roads supervisors and WLRD field personnel carry cellular phones. • Onsite Emergency Equipment: An industrial first aid kit, a 20 -pound type ABC portable fire extinguisher, and an eyewash kit will be stationed at the job trailer. • Hospital Route (see attached map) 1. Start out going North on PACIFIC HWY S/TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. 0.2 miles 2: Turn SLIGHT RIGHT onto S BOEING ACCESS RD. 0.5 miles Map 3: Merge onto I -5 N toward SEATTLE. 6.4 miles 4: Take the DEARBORN STJJAMES ST. exit- number 164A- toward MADISON ST.. 1.1 miles 5: Take the JAMES ST. exit. 0.1 miles 6: Turn RIGHT onto JAMES ST. 0.1 miles 7: Turn RIGHT onto 9TH AVE. 0.1 miles 8: End at 325 9TH AVE 10/4/04 P:UCC SOLID WASTE\NORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPWWW HSPLAN.DOC 15 7.1.1 INJURIES For injuries which are not life threatening, normal decontamination procedures should be followed when possible. However, decontamination procedures may be modified according to the specific circumstances. Outer protective clothing should be removed if doing so would not cause delays or aggravate the injury. Bodily injuries will be handled in the following manner: • The victim will be administered to by an individual who holds current first and/or CPR certification, as necessary. 7.2 FIRE • The local first -aid squad/rescue unit will be notified as appropriate, depending on the nature of the emergency. 7.1.2 COLD STRESS Fieldwork may be conducted during the cooler months, when site personnel may be subject to low temperatures, rain, and winds. In these conditions, field teams must be prepared to wear proper protective clothing and to recognize symptoms of cold stress. Cold stress can be manifested as both hypothermia and frostbite: • Hypothermia is a cold- induced decrease in the core body temperature that can increase the safety hazards associated with investigation activities that require maximum attentiveness and manual dexterity. Hypothermia produces shivering, numbness, drowsiness, muscular weakness, and, if severe enough, death. • Frostbite (unlikely at this site) results from the constriction of blood vessels in the extremities and decreasing the supply of warming blood to these areas. This drop in blood supply may result in the formation of ice crystals in the tissues, causing tissue damage. The symptoms of frostbite are white or grayish skin, blisters, or numbness. Site personnel should review the information provided in their first aid training for response to cold stress problems. Fire extinguishers (ABC -type) will be kept in each excavator and at the job trailer. Only trained individuals will use this equipment, and only in response to small fires. In the event of major fires, explosions, or fire /explosion hazard conditions, all personnel will immediately evacuate the area. The site safety officer will evaluate the need for further evacuation and/or emergency services. 10/4/04 P:UCC SOLID WASTEWORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPINWW HSPLAN.DOC 16 7.3 SITE EVALUATION AND EVACUATION The site safety officer will be responsible for determining if circumstances exist which require further evaluation and/or evacuation. The site safety officer should always assume worst -case conditions until proven otherwise. Specific evacuation procedures and warning signs and signals will be covered in the health and safety training session prior to beginning work. Based on current knowledge of the site, there are no foreseeable conditions that would require evacuation of the surrounding area. 8.0 TRAINING All personnel performing onsite investigation tasks shall have completed formal health and safety training, which complies with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 29 CFR 1910.120, and Washington State Labor and Industry regulations, WAC 296 -62 -300. 10/4/04 PAKC SOLID WASTEWORTH WIND'S WEIR CAPWWW HSPLAN.DOC 17 August 31, 2004 Dear Mr. Hansen,: 1~i Jon Hansen 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION RE: North Winds Weir Intertidal Restoration: L04 -051 Steven M Mullet, Mayor Your application for the first phase of North Winds Weir Intertidal Restoration located at 2724 South 112` Street, Tukwila, WA has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: a. Site Plan conforming to application checklist table. In addition, the landscape plan should depict the limits of the three shoreline environments (buffers) as outlined in TMC 18.44. b. Cost estimate including labor and materials to complete vegetation restoration. c. Time Schedule conforming to application checklist table. d. A site -based landscape plan conforming to application requirements and depicting the three shoreline environments (TMC 18.44) after the project is completed as well as all property boundaries and adjacent properties within 200 ft of the new mean high water mark. e. The Washington State Department of Ecology Remediation Plan and an erosion and sediment control plan (if not included in the remediation plan). f. A plan to maintain and monitor plantings after initial re- vegetation. g. Documentation that this project meets exemption requirements of RCW 90.58.147 if you wish to p roceed without a shoreline permit. h. Documentation that this permit meets the exception criteria of TMC 18.54.140 if you wish to plant fewer than the required replacement trees. Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompletness within 14 days. •These applications will expire if we 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 431 -3655. My regular hours are Monday through Wednesday, 7:00am to 3:40 pm. Sincerely, Alice Strand Senior Planner s � King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 - 3855 206 - 296 -6519 206 - 296 -0192 Fax August 25, 2004 Brendan Miles City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Phase 1— Soil Remediation North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Dear Mr. Miles: As you requested, enclosed are copies of the State Environmental Policy Act Checklist, Determination of Non - Significance, and a draft planting plan for Phase 2 of the overall project. I trust this information will assist in your review of the permit application submitted for this project. As we discussed on the telephone, the plans for the final site restoration and planting plan are still draft, but the enclosed plans should give you an idea of the type and extent of planting proposed. More detailed plans will be submitted this fall to secure permits for the intertidal restoration that would be implemented during the summer of 2005. Should you have any further questions, please call me at 206 - 296 -1966 or contact me via e-mail at jon.hansen @metrokc.gov. Sincerely, Hansen, Senior Ecologist logical Services Unit JH:bgD45 cc: Diane Concannon, Manager, Ecological Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division Enclosures August 16, 2004 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206 -296 -6519 206 - 296 -0192 Fax Laurie Werle Administrative Support Technician City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southceriter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Type C, Type E, and Tree Clearing Permit —North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Dear Ms. Werle: The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would like to request a Type C Construction, Type E Potential Disturbance, and a Tree Clearing Permit from the City of Tukwila for Phase I work on the North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project. The need for these permits was spelled out in a pre - application meeting held in December 2003 and the subsequent preapplication meeting checklists dated December 18, 2003. This first phase of the project will focus on removal of soil material contaminated with hydrocarbons (that is, diesel fuel, oil, etc.) present in the upper layers of the soil. Future phases of the project will involve the removal of historic fill and native soils to create valuable intertidal habitat notably lacking in the lower Duwamish River. The project is located along the eastern bank of the lower Duwamish River at approximately river mile 6.2, within the City of Tukwila. The project area encompasses approximately 3.27 acres and is bordered on the west by the Duwamish River and a fringe of intertidal habitats, to the north by Seattle City Light property, to the east by an existing industrial facility, and to the south by South 112th Street. The project will involve removal of historic fill and shoreline armoring and restore the connection of this site to the river and the tides. This project will restore critical intertidal functions, such as foraging and refuge habitat for juvenile salmon by restoring mudflat, saltmarsh, and riparian habitats. The existing land use consists of vacant industrial land on historic fill material. The property's topography is relatively flat. All structures have been demolished, and the fill material is largely unvegetated except for some black cottonwood, non - native cottonwood, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, such as poisonous hemlock and St. John wart. Two large concrete pads from abandoned buildings are present in the central portion of the site. Laurie Werle August 16, 2004 Page 2 Phase I of the project will involve removal of soils tainted with hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon contaminants are located near the surface and will be completely removed during the first phase of construction. Phase II, which will involve excavation for creation of the intertidal habitat, will be proposed under a separate permit application to be submitted later this fall. King County, in consultation with the Washington State Department of Ecology, is developing a remediation plan for the removal and proper disposal of these materials. Because this first phase is being proposed as a remediation effort, and the balance of the work will be permitted separately, a Shoreline Permit is not being submitted at this time. In the process of fill removal, all of the trees on -site will need to be removed. All of the trees are deciduous, and most are within 100 feet of the shoreline zone of the Duwamish River. Most of the trees are 12 inches or greater in diameter at 4.5 feet above grade and deemed "Significant Trees" by the City of Tukwila, according to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.06.775. Seventeen native cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and 31 non - native white poplar (Populus alba) constitute the Significant Tree species found on the site. There are seven other non - significant trees within 300 feet of the shoreline and a row of deciduous trees more than 300 feet from the shoreline, along the east border of the project site. The significant trees in each size category are listed in the following table. The number of replacement trees required by the City of Tukwila are shown in parentheses. 8 -12" in diameter 12 -18" in diameter 18 -24" in diameter Total No. of Black Cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) 5 (10) 12 (48) 5 (30) 22 (88) No of White Poplar (Populus alba) 2 (4) 27 (108) 4 (24) 33 (136) Under the City's current regulations, mitigation for the loss of these trees would require that a large number of native trees with a minimum of a 2.5 -inch caliper be replanted. Obviously, this could not be accommodated until after the final site grading is completed, which would occur in Phase II. Given the unique nature of the restoration proposed for the site, King County would also request that these standards be reviewed for suitability to future site conditions. Our intent is not to avoid compliance, so much as to work with the City to determine the appropriate timing for the revegetation as well as the type and size of plant materials that will ultimately be used. The enclosed application materials include the completed application forms and site plans for Phase I, as well as a complete State Environmental Policy Act Checklist and Determination of Non - Significance for the entire project. Laurie Werle August 16, 2004 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding the application or the enclosed materials, please contact me at 206 - 296 -1966 or via e-mail at jon.hansen @metrokc.gov. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Jon Hansen, Senior Ecologist Ecological Services Unit JH:CY:bgD2s Enclosures A cc: Diane Concannon, Manager, Ecological Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) Cindy Young, Ecologist, Ecological Services Unit, WLRD rl PMW 'Poricorstsopt GED tine C og_ C (Aden SIYIoy Z -21/- ) 06 6 ee et goat -? 2i4 g_ at_ -- 61 L) . pe h- 4/e__. Act Piro eor C6ro HMS?" ttt �Kc� Co PriPP avG 443 -7 I "0' OlVe-P 26) 21‘--(16 ao6 - act -4go� c_01-00 c90,5--eft, Y� King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206 - 296 -6519 206 - 296 -0192 Fax March 15, 2004 Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Pre - Application Meeting PRE03 -028 Follow -up North Wind's Weir Intertidal Restoration Project Dear Ms. Gierloff: On December 19, 2003, representatives from the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met with City of Tukwila staff members to discuss a proposed habitat restoration project on the Duwamish River. Everyone we met with from the City was very helpful and did a good job answering our questions about the City's permit processes. The meeting summary, written comments from the departments, and the permit application packet mailed to us later were all very useful. Subsequent to our meeting, however, new questions have arisen regarding how shoreline regulations would apply to the neighboring property once our project is constructed. In an attempt to answer some of those questions, we would like to meet with someone from your staff to look specifically at the Shoreline issues. Carol Lumb, Senior Planner who attended the initial meeting, suggested that we contact you directly to request a follow -up discussion specifically on these points. I understand that the City cannot make binding decisions regarding proposals not yet submitted for official review, but we would like to discuss the following issues: • When the restoration project is constructed, what will the new shoreline setbacks be? Can these setbacks be modified based on the nature of the proposed project such as public access, habitat restoration, and extensive planting? • Will the addition of shoreline jurisdiction to the neighboring property change the development potential or alter development standards currently applicable to the site? • What types of additional environmental analysis, permitting, or other requirements should the neighboring property owner expect to encounter as a result of the movement of the shoreline jurisdiction? Nora Gierloff March 15, 2004 Page 2 • Do applications for commercial/industrial development vest with respect to Shoreline regulations, and if so, for how long? Does vesting cover changes in shoreline jurisdiction or just relate to standards? Although the questions are quite broad, we are simply trying to obtain a better understanding of how the project will affect the neighboring site. Without clarification, the adjacent property owner is understandably concerned about the potential effect the project will have on his property. Any guidance you or your staff can provide on these questions will help move the project closer to implementation. If possible, we would like to meet to discuss these issues in the next two weeks. Please call me at 206 - 296 -1966 or contact me at jon.hansen @metrokc.gov to set up a meeting time. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Hansen, Senior Ecologist cological Services Unit J cc: Noel Gilbrough, Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Faith Roland, Acquisitions Supervisor, Open Space Acquisitions Unit, Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) Gary Blanchard, Acquisition Project Manager, Open Space Acquisitions Unit, WLRD Don Althauser, Supervising Engineer, Surface Water Engineering Services Unit, WLRD From: Nora Gierloff To: JON.hansen @metrokc.gov Date: 3/29/04 12:11 PM Subject: North Wind's Weir Restoration Hello Mr. Hansen, I have been looking into your questions about how the proposed intertidal restoration project would affect the neighboring property owners. I consulted Ecology and received the following response: The attached document is the relevant portion of a report prepared for the City of Seattle specifically relevant to the issue that you raise. Ecology believes that it accurately describes the legal and policy framework of the SMA as applicable to your situation. Please contact me if you have any questions. Tom Mark, AICP Senior Policy Analyst Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program 360 - 407 -7540 Essentially the shoreline jurisdiction would move landward with the excavation. After that time non - exempt activities within 200' of the new MHWM would trigger shoreline permits and be subject to shoreline policies and regulations. This would not necessarily have a significant effect on existing developments, other than possibly creating a non - conforming situation. It was difficult for me to tell exactly how far the shoreline zones would reach, and therefore what the specific impacts might be. Tukwila will be updating its Shoreline Master Program in compliance with state regulations but it is likely to be several years before the revisions are adopted. Please let me know if you need additional information. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD (206) 433 -7141 CC: Carol Lumb THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT JURISDICTION AND INCENTIVES FOR SHORELINE RESTORATION PROJECTS By Eric Laschever, Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP Project Manager Miles Mayhew, City of Seattle Produced through funding from the Public Involvement and Education Project, financed by proceeds from the Washington State Centennial Clean Water Fund and administered by the Puget Sound Action Team. Funding was also provided through Waterworks, the King County Water Quality Block Grant awarded by the King County Department of Natural Resources Preface from the Puget Sound Action Team Since the arrival of settlers in the Puget Sound basin, 70 percent of tidally influenced wetlands have been lost, largely due to urbanization, port development, industrial use, dredging and filling. There are considerable ongoing efforts to reduce the rate of loss of these important habitats and restore them, where possible. While each restoration opportunity has its challenges, restoring functional habitat along urbanized waterfronts is especially difficult. In recent years, some of the natural fish and wildlife function of these areas has been restored on a small scale in an effort to boost production and survival of declining species such as salmon and shorebirds. Many of these projects were conducted as mitigation for new waterfront construction activities or pollution incidents. Few, if any, restoration projects outside the regulatory context have occurred on urban waterfronts, but where habitat improvements have been made, important species have re- colonizedfhe restored area. The following document explores an unusual regulatory situation that has hampered restoration efforts in the past and may be perceived as a disincentive for doing restoration in the future. It should be noted that, in general, the Shoreline Management Act and its implementing guidelines are designed to protect natural shoreline function. The creative solutions provided in this document are meant to explore mechanisms within the current guidelines, that if employed on a limited basis, within fixed and identified geographic areas could enhance restoration opportunities in some of the most degraded areas of Puget Sound. Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction And Incentives For Shoreline Restoration Projects The listing of several salmonid species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act has highlighted the pressing need to restore habitat functions and values along the State's shorelines. While a number of state statutes encourage such restoration, other laws may be creating disincentives to restoration. Recently applicants and local governments have questioned whether the Shorelines Management Act' ( "SMA" or "Act "), which is intended to promote coordinated management and planning for shoreline resources, may inadvertently be presenting obstacles to shoreline restoration. This white paper describes some recent experiences in pursuing restoration and analyzes the SMA's relevant provisions to determine whether restoration projects that alter shorelines also change the Act's jurisdictional reach to include lands that may have previously been beyond shorelinejurisdiction. Rat I of the paper describes the issue that has arisen as property owners interested in voluntary restoration and local governments by to permit projects to restore shoreline habitat. Part II of the paper reviews the SMA's jurisdictional provisions issue and concludes that the SMAjurisdiction does change if shoreline restoration alters the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline. Part III identifies tools that local governments may use to create incentives for land owners to restore shorelines. I. Examples of Possible Disincentives The SMA creates a potential disincentive for restoration because shorelinejurisdiction typically is limited to 200 feet of the ordinary high water. Under the SMA, projects within shorelinejurisdiction are subject to additional permit requirements and appeals. Therefore, property owners will often try to plan potential developments so that they are located outside of the shorelinejurisdiction. The following case studies illustrate potential issues. Case Study 1: Hamm Creek. Seattle City Light was approached by King County to provide an easement to daylight a creek and connect it to the Duwamish Waterway. Seattle City Light had purchased the site, located adjacent to a City Light Substation, for the future construction of a combustion turbine. The part of the site that City Light anticipated developing was more than 200 feet from the shoreline and, therefore, outside of shorelinejurisdiction. City Light wished to retain that portion of the site for future industrial use outside of shorelinejurisdiction. City Light was also willing to maximize the area of the recreated estuary (mouth of the creek) as long as its first objective could be met. Ecology said it could not meet the need of City Light to have a portion of the land remain outside of shorelinejurisdiction unless the new estuary did not move closer than 200 feet to the portion of the site City Light wanted RCW ch. 90.58. protected. Therefore the estuary portion of the restoration project was considerably smaller than it might have been. Appendix A is the letter from the Department of Ecology to King County stating the basis for Ecology's position. The Hamm Creek case study illustrates how the potential extension of shorelinejurisdiction can affect a single property owner's decisions regarding its property. The second case study illustrates the potential effect when restoration projects might affect the shorelinejurisdiction for neighboring projects. Case Study 2. Port restoration. A commercial business operating a non - water dependent business, built a building just upriver of a port facility. The manufacturer built 200 feet back fi.om the shoreline where the non - water dependent nature of the facility would not be an issue. The Port owns the most waterward portion of the shoreline. Although there was a possibility, in conjunction with the Port, of increasing fish habitat at the shoreline by creating coves and lobes, the neighboring manufacturer did not want to have this occur because that would have moved the shoreline and consequently impinged on their use of the property. Therefore, the Port did not pursue the restoration project. These examples suggest that property owners and their neighbors may not be pursuing restoration projects because of concern that a change in the shoreline resulting from the restoration would place property that is not now within the shoreline into SMA jurisdiction. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the type of situation that has arisen in the above case studies. Under this simple scenario, the restoration on Property A adds area to shorelinejurisdiction on Property B. If the same owner owns both properties the disincentive is borne by a sole owner. If different owners own the two properties, then one owner's restoration changes the land use rules that apply to the other owner's property. Part II examines the legal issue in more detail. 2 ILLUSTRATION OF SMA JURISDICTIONAL REACH ISSUE before restoration after restoration Shoreline jurisdiction outside Shoreline jurisdiction area added to Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of restoration 11. Jurisdictional Reach of the SMA The SMA applies to "shorelines of the state, which includes both "shorelines" and "shorelines of state -wide significance " 2 Shorelines include: [A]ll of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of state -wide significance; (ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetland associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shoreline on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes[.] "Shorelines of state -wide significance" is a category of shorelines, and includes enumerated portions of Puget Sound and large lakes and rivers and their associated shorelands. "Shorelands" or "shoreland areas" includes: [T]hose lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark;l floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter. ... (emphasis added). This language demonstrates the breadth of the SMA jurisdiction over state waterways, their adjacent shorelands, and land falling within the 200 -foot of the ordinary high water mark. The jurisdictional definition does not distinguish between altered and unaltered shorelines. Therefore, the 200 -foot limit to jurisdiction would apply under this language to areas that are within 200 feet of ordinary high water mark resulting from a restored shoreline. The legislative findings and policy statement for the SMA supports the conclusion that SMA jurisdiction changes if the ordinary high water mark changes. The policy statement specifically addresses the alterations of shorelines. The SMA requires the Department of Ecology to recognize shoreline classifications and to revise these as needed, "regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man -made causes or natural causes. " The SMA also expressly exempts from its provisions areas that "no longer meet the definition of `shorelines of the state. "' Thus, the SMA provides a mechanism 2 RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). ' RCW 90.58.030(2)(d). ' RCW 90.58.030(2)(exi -vi). ' The ordinary high water mark is the vegetation line. 6 RCW 90.58.030(2)(f). ' RCW 90.58.020. 9 /d 4 that exempts certain areas from its regulations, but it does not express an intent to exempt newly- created shorelines that meet the definition of "shorelines of the state" from its provisions. Further indication of the Legislature's intent to retain jurisdiction over shorelines exist in the SMA. For example, projects to improve fish habitat or passage or wildlife habitat are specifically exempted from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit: however, local governments must still review these projects for consistency with their local shoreline master program.' The same principle holds true for watershed planning projects. An unpublished case from the Washington State Court of Appeals illustrates Ecology's interpretation of the jurisdictional reach of the SMA. In Correll v. TheDept. cf Ecology, 2000 WL 1514842 (Div. 3), the appellant applied with Ecology to construct a canal and boat moorage in the lake adjacent to their property." Ecology's entered findings to support the permit that stated that the construction of the canal would increase the shoreline of the lake and constitute a new shoreline. Although the Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of this case, it illustrates that Ecology interprets the Act's jurisdiction to include areas that result from alteration of the shoreline. Ecology's position in the Hamm Creek case (Case Study 1) above similarly illustrates this point. 111. Tools for Local Governments to Create Incentives for Restoration As has been illustrated, property owners may be reluctant to voluntarily restore shoreline areas because restoration that changes the ordinary high water mark would extend shorelinejurisdiction to property currently outside shorelinejurisdiction. Property owners may be concerned about additional requirements that the SMA imposes on development within the shoreline. This Section identifies a number of land use planning tools that local governments could implement as part of their shoreline master programs without an amendment to the Shoreline Management Act or Shoreline Guidelines. There may be some benefit in explicitly including these tools in the new version of the guidelines to increase their visibility and local governments' confidence in using them. The effect of creating new areas of shorelands as a result of restoring shoreline areas could apply to neighboring properties as well as to the property that built the restoration projects. Owners of neighboring properties, therefore, could oppose the project. Some of the tools to provide incentives for restoration would apply to the neighboring properties as well as to the property where the restoration occurs. 9 RCW 90.58.147(1)(c). 1° RCW 90.58.515. " Correll v. TheDept. of Ecology, 2000 WL 1514842,9 (Div. 3). '2 1d. " The court dismissed the Correll's case because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the SMA. The Correll's should have appealed Ecology's finding that the canal was a shoreline to the Shorelines Hearings Board. 5 The approaches described in Section A -E include more detailed review of the criteria local governments should consider in determining whether the approach is appropriate. Approaches in Sections F, G and H include resource materials in appendices. Approaches described in Sections I, J, and K are tools that are briefly described, but it was determined did not need elaboration in this study. A. Master Plan provisions that facilitate fills related to restoration. Restoration projects that move the ordinary high water mark seaward would result in removing areas currently within shorelinejurisdiction from shorelinejurisdiction. Such projects would typically require some fill activities. Many local programs discourage fill activities that create dry land. Plan amendments that make it easier to conduct fill activities as part of a shoreline restoration project could lead to greater restoration activities. Although filling shorelines is typically discouraged because it results in the loss of habitat, there are circumstances in areas that are already highly altered that filling part of the shoreline, while excavating other areas to restore habitat might make sense. Situations where such an approach may be appropriate include: o Bulkheaded areas, often in highly developed City waterfront areas, that have create-a straight edge along the shoreline, such as the sea wall along Seattle's Elliott Bay. • Contaminated areas in industrial areas where the approved cleanup includes capping with clean sediments. Under such circumstances, the Property owner might find some property moving into shorelinejurisdiction, while other property might fall out of shorelinejurisdiction. The net results might be acceptable to the owner and at the same time result in a net increase in shoreline functions. This approach would not be appropriate in areas that are relatively undisturbed and where the existing conditions already have high function and value. Local governments could choose from the following criteria in setting standards for fills associated with restoration activities: (a) the creation of dry land from the fill is part of a restoration project that results in a net increase of aquatic and/ or wetlands habitat function and value; and (b) the creation of dry land from the fill maintains a comparable amount of developable land within and outside shorelinejurisdiction for the project proponent or adjacent property owners. B. Range of uses. Local governments establish through their comprehensiveplans, zoning codes, Shoreline Master Programs, and other land use controls the types of uses (e.g. residential, 6 commercial, industrial) that are allowed in specific areas. Local governments could authorize a greater range of uses on properties affected by restoration. For example, SMPs could include provisions explicitly recognizing that restoration projects satisfy requirements for water dependent and water related uses when combined with non -water dependent/related activities on other areas on the affected property. This approach is consistent with long standing precedent of the Shoreline Hearings Board that recognize that non -water dependent or water - related uses that incorporate public access meet the SMA's preferred uses for shorelines of state -wide significance. This approach would generally not be appropriate in natural areas where the potential for restoration is low due to the undisturbed nature of the existing conditions. For example, the Shoreline Master Program could allow non -water dependent uses to occur on properties where restoration had occurred, or on properties that are subject to shorelinejurisdiction as a result of restoration on neighboring properties. The restored area would be protected from development by existing development regulations and standards. It should be noted that the land that becomes subject to shorelinejurisdiction is furthest away from the shoreline and the least suited for water dependent uses in any case and should be the part of the property where non -water dependent uses could be allowed. Two options are presented below. The first would maintain the status quo of uses allowed on the property that was previously outside of shorelinejurisdiction. This might not provide an incentive since the property would still be subject to the procedural requirements of the SMA. The second option would allow for a greater range of uses on the portion of the property that was already within shorelinejurisdiction. This approach would provide an incentive to the property owners by providing additional flexibility for the property that was already in shorelinejurisdiction. Option 1: Local governments could choose from the following criteria in setting standards regarding the range of uses: (a) the restoration project results in a net increase of aquatic and/ or wetlands habitat function and value and shall fulfill the objective of encouraging water dependent uses of the shoreline; and (b) the property that moves from outside of shorelinejurisdiction to within shoreline jurisdiction may continue to be developed using the same range of uses consistent with the underlying land use zone and the comprehensive plan. Option 2: Local governments could choose from the following criteria in setting standards regarding the range of uses: 7 (a) the restoration project results in a net increase of aquatic and/ or wetlands habitat function and value and shall fulfill the objective of encouraging water dependent uses of the shoreline; and (b) the property subject to the restoration and any property that moves from outside of shorelinejurisdiction to within shorelinejurisdiction as a result of the restoration project may be developed for a range of uses consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning code, including uses that are non -water dependent; and (c) the development of the portion of the property that is not subject to restoration shall be subject to storm water, drainage, setbacks, noise, light, grading, or other appropriate restrictions that assure that the restoration continues to provide a net increase in aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value. C. Restoration inventing development standards. Development standards are the broad array of regulations, such as setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, storm water detention, and buffers that local governments apply to property. Local governments could enact development standards appropriate for altered shorelines that provide opportunities for increased densities or other means of increasing the value of land affected by restoration projects. Such densities could be focused away from the restored area, or other ecologically valuable resources. This approach would be most appropriately applied in urban areas where increased density is consistent with the Growth Management Act and where many shorelines have potential for restoration due to historic patterns of development (e.g. former industrial areas or diked areas along rivers and estuaries within the urban growth area). This approach would generally not be appropriate in more rural areas where the potential for restoration is low due to the undisturbed nature of the existing conditions. Local governments could choose from the following criteria in setting standards regarding incenting development standards: (a) the restoration project results in a net increase of aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value; and (b) the property subject to the restoration and any property that moves from outside of shorelinejurisdiction to within shorelinejurisdiction may seek an adjustment from the development standards. These development standards could include height restrictions, density requirements, floor to area ratio, or setbacks subject to Planned Unit Development process; and (c) the development of the portion of the property that is not subject to restoration shall be subject to storm water, drainage, setbacks, noise, light, grading, or other appropriate restrictions that assure that the restoration continues to provide a net increase in aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value. 8 D. Integrated buffers. Local governments could modify the buffers that would apply to the restored areas and to other areas on the affected property. In particular buffer regulations could be tailored to ensure that buffers are not imposed on restoration areas that further impact the remaining developable land. Local government would need to ensure that such action sufficiently protected existing functions and values. For example, many highly altered areas provide limited function and value for such attributes as large woody debris recruitment, shading, or large animal habitat. Where such areas become buffers due to restoration, local governments should retain flexibility in establishing buffer widths that result in a net increase in function and value that may be different then would be used in an undisturbed area. Local governments could choose from the following criteria in setting'standards for integrated buffers: (a) the restoration project results in a net increase of aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value and shall fulfill the objective of encouraging water dependent uses of the shoreline; and (b) buffers that apply to development of the property subject to the restoration and any property that moves from outside of shoreline jurisdiction to within shoreline jurisdiction may be developed using buffers for the restoration project that are no more restrictive then the buffers that would apply without the restoration but that still assure that the restoration project results in a net increase in aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value; and (c) the development of the portion of the property that is not subject to restoration shall be subject to storm water, drainage, setbacks, noise, light, grading, or other appropriate restrictions, in addition to buffers, that assure that the restoration continues to provide a net increase in aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value. E. Credit for open space requirements for remainder of site. Local governments could allow affected property owners to use restoration areas to satisfy open space requirements. For example, under the scenario illustrated in Figure 1, the property owner would be able to use the restoration project to earn an open space credit for the developable part of the property. This credit would balance out the disincentive of having the property moving into shoreline jurisdiction. Local governments could choose from the following criteria in setting standards for substitution for open space: 9 (a) the restoration project results in a net increase of aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value and shall fulfill the objective of encouraging water dependent uses of the shoreline; and (b) restoration projects may be used to satisfy requirements for open space;and (c) the development of the portion of the property that is not subject to restoration shall be subject to storm water, drainage, setbacks, noise, light, grading or other appropriate restrictions, in addition to buffers, that assure that the restoration continues to provide a net increase in aquatic or wetlands habitat function and value. F. Transfer of Development Rights. Local governments could assign owners of affected properties development rights that could be transferred to other properties ( "Transfer of Development Rights" or "TDRs "). Such programs are currently used by some jurisdictions to address properties that cannot be developed due to the presence of critical areas or to create incentives for specific types of development. Local governments could identify specific "receiving areas" away from the shoreline, or in parts of the shoreline that may be appropriate for more intense use. Transfer of Development Rights have been used to promote a number of important objectives, including relieving pressure on properties constrained by sensitive areas, promoting infill in urban areas, by transfemng rights from more rural areas, and providing credit inside urban areas for retaining natural resource lands outside of the Urban Growth Area. Development rights could be provided in exchange for voluntary restoration projects. Examples of TDR ordinances that could be used as models by local governments are included in Appendix B. G. Planned action. RCW 43.21C.031 allows GMA counties and cities to designate a planned action for subareas. Local governments could identify areas that are a high priority for restoration and prepare a planned action for the area that would cover both restoration and development projects. As discussed below, the planned action would satisfy many of the environmental review requirements. As part of a planned action the local government prepares a detailed programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that analyses environmental impacts of specific types of actions identified as planned actions. The local government then adopts an ordinance, following a public process, that adopts the planned action along with the mitigation identified in the EIS. The planned action ordinance satisfies SEPA's procedural requirements for implementing activities that are consistent with the planned•action ordinance. 10 For example, a local government could identify an area of its shoreline that has significant restoration and redevelopment potential and prepare a "planned action" EIS that addresses both restoration and redevelopment impacts. After a public process, the local government would designate the restoration and redevelopment activities as "planned actions." Property owners that developed and restored their properties consistent with the planned action requirements could use the work already done to satisfy SEPA's procedural requirements. Appendix C includes information regarding Planned Actions that local governments have enacted that evaluate the costs and benefits of the approach. The study identifiesjurisdictions that could be contacted to obtain copies of planned action documents. H. Subarea- SEPA plan. A subarea plan is a focused plan that local governments adopt for a discrete area within its boundaries to provide greater detail, or more area specific policies or development standards. The local government could identify areas of high priority for restoration and conduct subarea planning and environmentalreview that would reduce the costs of conducting environmental review by individual property owners. Examples of subarea plans for shoreline areas include Tacoma's Thea Foss Redevelopment and the Anacortes Fidalgo Bay Subarea Plan. These plans are briefly discussed in Appendix C. I. Expedited permitting. Local governments could include provisions in their codes allowing properties with voluntary restoration to receive priority treatment in processing. J. Vesting. State statues and case law establish the time of vesting for a variety of land use approvals. Local governments may enact vesting rules that are more protective of the property owner than is provided by state law. Local governments could vest development on affected properties to land use rules in effect at time of application or approval of the restoration project. K. Focus appeals at Shoreline Hearings Board. Some local governments still subject shoreline permits to local appeals in addition to statutory appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board. If properties subject to restoration were not subject to local appeals, it would remove one area of time and cost of approval. A change in the appeals process would occur only after the legislative body for the local government conducted the appropriate public process for amending its code. Accountability would still be met by Shoreline Hearings Board review for consistency with the SMP and SMA. K1240831000081ESL1ESL_O2128 11 APPENDIX A JON -27 -2003 FRI 08:52 AM FAX August 21, 1995 STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT CF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 48504 -7600 (206) 407-6000 • WO Mfg (Hearing Impaired) (206). 407 -6006 Mr. Jim Kramer, Manager King County Surface Water Management Division' Department of Public Works 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Dear Mr. Kramer: Thank you for your letter of July 14, 1995, concerning the Hamm Creek habitat improvement project on the Duwamisb River. Clearly this is a project that everyone- should support. In the past Ecology has done, and will continue to do, whatever we can to assure that this project is successfully completed. We also understand the desire on the part of Seattle City Light to be able to move forward on their generator project or to use their property for other purposes. However, after careful review and consideration, and in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, it is our cogplusion that we simply do not have the legal authority to interpret the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) In the manner suggested. The act does give the department thefauthority to establish the ordinary high water mark but only to the extent that the location established is n accordance with the definition in the law. ..AUG 4 4 1995 OEP% GF ecotijo This definition is specific in stating tiat the mark is found ly examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence ad action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character d i s t i n c t f r o m t h a t of t h e abutting upland, in respect t o vegetation , .." As you note, the definition goes on to allow consijteratioa of natural changes and of changes that are the result of permitted develogm'pat, but only to the extent that the physical indicators of the mark actually change location. You propose that the line be fixed by the terms of the permit at the current location. The problem with the proposal is tt4it when the project i3 completed, an ordinary high water mark will exist on the properly in a new location established by the presence and action of the water. Any declaitation by Ecology or anyone else that is not consistent with the physical evideecp, would be pointless. ..e P. 02 0 JON -27 -2003 FRI 08:52 AN Mr. J im Kramer Page 2 August 21, 1995 FAX 1i0. We completely agree with your statement that the restoration project is consistent with the policy of the SMA. However. the promotion of broad public participation in the decisions about shoreline development is also part of the basic policy of the act. The effect of your proposal would be to deprive the public of participation in decision making about the shoreline and it is, therefore, inconsistent with that aspect of the Act's policy. The precedent may appear good as viewed from the perspective of this project. But n fact the precedent, from our perspective, would be the abandonment of over twenty years of consistent application of the definition of the ordinary high water mark, based on the actual field conditions and evaluation pursuant to biological and hydrological science. There is substantial case law saying wpat is proposed cannot be done and that Eoo1cgy's long - standing interpretation'•ls the correct approach. The Suprew Court case, Ittanita Bay Valley Community rl. City of Kirkland (1973) established the practice of basing such determinations on actual field conditions and good science as appropriate. Most recently, the SHB ppheld the practice in the anal R. Cassineilt. et al. v. City of Seattle and Norgaard case (WEB 9346 & 47). Finally, we would note that our review of the King County Shoreline bletax Program indicates that the area in question is designated as an Urban shoreline environment and that under that designation, non - water related industrial uses are a permitted use, While there can obviously be no guarantees given prior to application for a permit and review through the process, if the restoraticn project goes forward and Seattle City Light then applies for a shorelinq permit for the generation plant, the current plans for the area indicate that the prg ect is "approvable. ` The fact that the project would he designed b accommodate the restoration project would also likely be of assistance to a favorable outcome of tee permit process. In closing I would like to reiterate drat Ecology supports the restoration project. I suggest that the MOU be revised in a way that will facilitate the project. We continue to be interested in working with King County and Seattle City Light on this project and will be contacting you soon to follow -up on this matter. Sincerely, 7 ,&a:1/4.1L4 Mary Riveland Director CE: Cynthia Sullivan, King County Couwilmaiter P. 03 WAC 173 -27 -040 Developments exempt from substantial development permit requirement. (1) Application and interpretation of exemptions. (a) Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process. (b) An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the act or the local master program, nor from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of the applicable master program and the Shoreline Management Act. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to the local master program or is an unlisted use, must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards of the master program, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a variance. (c) The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant. (d) If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project. (e) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. (2) The following developments shall not require substantial development permits: (a) Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials; (b) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where Page 1 of 6 http: / /www. leg. wa .gov /wac /index.cfm ?fuseaction= Section &Section = 173 -27- 040 &printv... 10/12/2004 repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment; (c) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single - family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single - family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the department of fish and wildlife. (d) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency; (e) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels: Provided, That a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other Page 2 of 6 http: / /www. leg. wa.gov /wac /index.cfm ?fuseaction= Section &Section = 173 -27- 040 &printv... 10/12/2004 activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations; (f) Construction or modification, by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; (g) Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single - family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof. "Single- family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single - family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark; (h) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owners, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single- family and multiple - family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either: (i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter. For purposes of this section salt water shall include the tidally influenced marine and estuarine water areas of the state including the Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound and all bays and inlets associated with any of the above; Page 3 of 6 http: / /www. leg. wa.gov /wac /index.cfm ?fuseaction= Section &Section = 173 -27- 040 &printv... 10/12/2004 (i) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands; (j) The marking of property lines or corners on state -owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water; (k) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on June 4, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system; (1) Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW; (m) Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: (i) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; (ii) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; (iii) The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; (iv) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and (v) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550; (n) The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or the department of ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW; (o) Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local government shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any Page 4 of 6 http: / /www. leg. wa .gov /wac /index.cfm ?fuseaction= Section &Section = 173 -27- 040 &printv... 10/12/2004 conditions within forty-five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. (i) "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (A) A project that involves less than ten miles of streamreach, in which less than twenty -five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings; (B) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or (C) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. (ii) "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by the department of fish and wildlife, the department of ecology, the department of natural resources, the department of transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county, or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re- creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.2IC RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; (p) A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: (i) The project has been approved in writing by the department of fish and wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose; (ii) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the department of fish and wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW; and (iii) The local government has determined that the project is consistent with the local shoreline master program. The local government shall make Page 5 of 6 http: / /www. leg. wa .gov /wac /index.cfm ?fuseaction= Section &Section = 173 -27- 040 &printv... 10/12/2004 Page 6 of 6 such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. (3) Hazardous substance remedial actions. The procedural requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW shall not apply to a project for which a consent decree, order or agreed order has been issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW or to the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW. The department shall, in consultation with the appropriate local government, assure that such projects comply with the substantive requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 173 -26 WAC and the local master program. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. 96-20-075 (Order 95 -17), § 173- 27-040, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.] http: / /www. leg. wa.gov /wac /index.cfm ?fuseaction= Section &Section = 173 -27- 040 &printv... 10/12/2004 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -TREE Planner: File Number: LO ii — 35 1 Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail :: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: R,i,S7r a %an LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. 2 7 u1 I l )- Tv } l; le-, WA Quarter: 5f. Section: 4 Township: 23 W Range: LIE (This information may be found on your tax statement) TREE CLEARING PERMIT Nor Winds Weir T WCrh`ei DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: .1 D 11 Ha N Sen r ZD 1 S. lei- t,k4I M SI-. ( 5u, *' 6 0 0 Ica / I d Y Address: k111Q ZJ (Doily Deparfniptif 0f Na.tvri I (tsovrcts ar`d Poets Phone: 206 q fO ' I' FAX: O ? ( (o —0 11 2 Y 6USJ At an f 1 t4f/Yt- Date: SNo y Signature: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail :: tukplan a(7,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY (Phone ; umber) Y PUBLI: in • for the State of Was residing at Q 4 a e l (A.rt. t My Commission expires on STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I . I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employes, ents en rneers ntracto or o representarves the right to enter upon Owner's real property, locatedat �25 1121-It _qt. TUk tVtIo WR for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. �l 13 E3tECUrED at S ea.4 (city), (state), on AG!`j k t13 S'I 200 Sfeve Oita. (Priru Name) .20 I S. Ja.c.lesoti Sdi ft 6o 60) ( (0 ) ) 296 -'531 Seadik- p et e i ssoNUETTE- /� (Signature) On this day personally appeared before me 5#� t/ t/% PIS to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrr4�wledged that/r>e a signed the same ash is voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned th ` e N. R 0, i i i lT �'te r ' .mtL1ALt.. c 03E MEONTHIS DAY OF /T Aur 1 2.005" 200 TM I°I Sale Date 9/18/2001 (Sale Price I$0 Seller Name MASTRO MICHAEL R Taxable Improvement Value $0 Buyer Name KING COUNTY Sale Date 9/18/2001 (Sale Price l$1,850,000 Seller Name MASTRO MICHAEL R Buyer Name KING COUNTY Sale Date 5/23/2001 Sale Price i$0 Seller Name H &M II ASSOC Buyer Name MASTRO MICHAEL R Appraised Land Value $176,800 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement Value $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Appraised Land Value $176,800 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement Value $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 District Name TUKWILA Property Name BOULEVARD EXCAVATING Type rty COMMERCIAL Plat Name Present Use Vacant (Industrial) ,King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 1 of 2 By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Taxpayer KING COUNTY Tax Year Tax Status Taxpayer KING COUNTY Tax Year Tax Status King County ' 1 rt 1 r = 1 R.ItiTivf-Tiv61 L rte' 2004 EXEMPT 2005 EXEMPT Assessor Real Property Records: Parcel Number Account Number Levy Code Taxable Value Reason Parcel Number Account Number Levy Code Taxable Value Reason 0423049114 042304911409 2417 EXEMPT Assessor Property Sales Records: Tip: Use the Recorders Office: Excise Tax Affidavits Report to see more sales records details 0423049114 042304911409 2417 EXEMPT Assessor Parcel Records: http: / /www5.metrokc.gov /reports /property report.asp ?PIN= 0423049114 10/12/2004 Account Number 042304911409 'Record I01 Number Legal Description 042304 114POR GL 10 BEG AT NXN OF W MGN STHWY # 1 & N MGN OF C OF S PIPE LNRIW TH S 89 -30 -59 W 414.14 FT TH _ Account Number 042304911409 'Record Number (02 Legal Description N 58 -42 -14 W 80.75 FT TH N33 -16 -12 E 137 FT TH N 0-23 - 17 W30 FT TH N 46 -08-49 E 74.59 FT TOTPOB TH N 33-16- 12 E 77 FTTOS Account Number 042304911409 'Record Number (03 SE 4 23 4 Legal Description MGN TRANS LN RJW TH N 57 -20 -50 WTO DUWAMISH RIVER TH SWLY ALGRIVER 154.55 FT M/L TH S 78-00- 00E TO TPOB Plat Block Water System WATER DISTRICT Plat Lot Sewer System PUBLIC Lot Area 25,265 SqFt (0.58 acres) Access PUBLIC Section/Township /Range SE 4 23 4 Street Surface NONE OR UNKNOWN King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report • Related on - line reports: Assessor Legal Description Records: This report was generated: 10/12/2004 11:05:35 AM DDES: Permit Applications Report King County: Districts and Development Conditions Report King County Assessor: eReal Property Report (PDF format requires Acrobat) King County Treasury Operations: Property Tax Information Recorders Office: Excise Tax Affidavits Report Recorders Office: Scanned images of plats, surveys, and other map documents Enter a 10 digit Parcel Number: or Enter an address: Search King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. Page 2 of 2 http: / /www5.metrokc.gov /reports /property report.asp ?PIN= 0423049114 10/12/2004 Sale Date 9/18/2001 'Sale Price '$0 Seller Name MASTRO MICHAEL R Taxable Improvement Value $0 Buyer Name KING COUNTY Sale Date 9/18/2001 'Sale Price 1$1,850,000 Seller Name MASTRO MICHAEL R Buyer Name KING COUNTY Sale Date 5/23/2001 'Sale Price i$0 Seller Name H&M II ASSOC Buyer Name MASTRO MICHAEL R Appraised Land Value $613,900 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement Value $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Appraised Land Value $613,900 Taxable Land Value $0 Appraised Improvement Value $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 District Name TUKWILA Property Name BOULEVARD EXCAVATING Property Type COMMERCIAL Plat Name Present Use Service Building King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 1 of 2 By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Taxpayer KING COUNTY Tax Year Tax Status Taxpayer KING COUNTY Tax Year Tax Status King County L fl i ± 2005 EXEMPT 2004 EXEMPT Assessor Real Property Records: Parcel Number Account Number Levy Code Taxable Value Reason 0423049118 042304911805 2417 EXEMPT Parcel Number Account Number Levy Code Taxable Value Reason 0423049118 042304911805 2417 EXEMPT Assessor Property Sales Records: Tip: Use the Recorders Office: Excise Tax Affidavits Report to see more sales records details Assessor Parcel Records: http: / /www5.metrokc.gov /reports /property report.asp ?PIN= 0423049118 10/12/2004 Account Number 042304911805 Record Number I 01 Legal Description 042304 118POR GL 10 LY ELY OF DUWAMISHRIVER & NLY OF C OF S PIPE LNRJW & LY SLY & WLY OF FOLG- BAAP Account Number 042304911805 (Record Number f 02 Legal Description ON N LN OF C OF S PIPE LN R/W414.14 FT W OF NXN OF W MGN STHWY # 1 WITH SD N LN TH N58 -42 -14 W 80.75 FT TH N 33 -16 -12 Account Number 042304911805 Record 103 Number Street Surface Legal Description E 137 FT TH N 0 -23 -17 W 30 FT THN 46 -08-49 E 74.59 FT TH N78 -00 -00 W TO DUWAMISH RIVER Plat Block Water System WATER DISTRICT Plat Lot Sewer System PUBLIC Lot Area 87,556 SqFt (2.01 acres) Access PUBLIC Section/Township/Range SE 4 23 4 Street Surface NONE OR UNKNOWN King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Related on - line reports: Assessor Legal Description Records: This report was generated: 10/12/2004 11:06:35 AM DDES: Permit Applications Report King County: Districts and Development Conditions Report King County Assessor: eReal Property Report (PDF format requires Acrobat) King County Treasury Operations: Property Tax Information Recorders Office: Excise Tax Affidavits Report Recorders Office: Scanned images of plats, surveys, and other map documents Enter a 10 digit Parcel Number: or Enter an address: Search King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. Page 2 of 2 http: / /www5.metrokc.gov /reports /property report.asp ?PIN= 0423049118 10/12/2004 25.08.450 Selective cutting. 25.08.460 Shoreline management conditional use. 25.08.470 Shoreline management variance. 25.08.480 Shoreline protection. 25.08.490 Shorelines. 25.08.500 Shoreline setback. 25.08.510 Shorelines of statewide significance. 25.08.520 Shorelines of the state. 25.08.530 Side cast slopes. 25.08.540 Sign. 25.08.550 Slash. 25.08.560 Solid waste. 25.08.565 Stringer Bridge. 25.08.570 Substantial development. 25.08.580 Utilities. 25.08.590 Water dependent use. 25.08.600 Water related use. 25.08.604 Water transmission pipeline. 25.08.610 Wetlands. 25.08.010 Applicability of RCW and WAC definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this chapter, the definitions contained in title 21A (the zoning code), RCW Chapter 90.58 and WAC 173 -14 shall apply. (Ord. 11792 § 23, 1995: Ord. 3688 Ch. 2 (part), 1978). 25.08.015 Applicant. "Applicant" means a property owner or a public agency or public or private utility which owns a right -of -way or other easement or has been adjudicated the right to such an easement pursuant to RCW 8.12.090, or any person or entity designated or named in writing by the property or easement owner to be the applicant, in an application for a development proposal, permit or approval. (Ord. 12196 § 58, 1996: Ord. 11700 § 45, 1995). 25.08.020 Access. A. Public Access. "Public access" means actual unobstructed access available to the general public from land to the ordinary high water mark or to the wetland directly abutting the ordinary high water mark. B. Limited Public Access. "Limited public access" means: 1. Actual physical access from land to the ordinary high water mark or to the wetland directly abutting the ordinary high water mark, such access being limited to specific groups of people or to certain regularly prescribed times; or 2. Visual access available to the general public to the shoreline and adjacent waterbody, such access being specifically provided for in the development of the site. (Ord. 3688 § 201, 1978). 25.08.030 Aquatic resource practices. "Aquatic resource practices" means the culture or farming of fin fish, shellfish, algae or other plants or animals in fresh or marine waters. Excluded from the definition of aquatic resource practices are related commercial or industrial uses such as wholesale or retail sales; or final processing, packing, or freezing. (Ord. 6511 § 1, 1983: Ord. 4222 § 1, 1979: Ord. 3688 § 202, 1978). 25.08.040 Average grade level. "Average grade level" means the average of the natural or existing topography at the center of all exterior walls of a building or structure to be placed on a site; provided, that in the case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of ordinary high water. (Ord. 3688 § 203, 1978). 25.08.050 Backfill. "Backfill" means the placement of earth material behind a retaining wall or structure. (Ord. 3688 § 204, 1978). 25 -5 Chapter 25.16 URBAN ENVIRONMENT Sections: 25.16.010 Purpose. 25.16.020 Designation criteria. 25.16.030 General requirements. 25.16.040 Agricultural practices. 25.16.050 Aquatic resource practices. 25.16.060 Forest management practices. 25.16.070 Commercial development. 25.16.080 Signs. 25.16.090 Residential development - Multifamily. 25.16.100 Residential development - Single- family. 25.16.110 Residential development- Accessory structures. 25.16.120 Residential development- Piers, moorage, or launching facilities- Conditions. 25.16.130 Residential development - Piers, moorage, or launching facilities - Accessory to multifamily development. 25.16.140 Residential development - Piers,moorage,and launching facilities - Accessory to single - family residence. 25.16.150 Subdivisions. 25.16.160 Utilities. 25.16.170 Industrial development. 25.16.180 Shoreline protection. 25.16.190 Excavation, dredging and filling. 25.16.200 Recreation. 25.16.010 Purpose. The purpose of designating the urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of the shorelines of the state within urbanized areas by permitting intensive use and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains the shorelines of the state for a multiplicity of urban uses. The urban environment is designed to reflect a policy of increasing utilization and efficiency of urban areas, to promote a more intense level of use through redevelopment of areas now under - utilized and to encourage multiple use of the shorelines of the state if the major use is water dependent or water related while at the same time safeguarding the quality of the environment. (Ord. 3688 § 401, 1978). 25.16.020 Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the urban environment shall be: A. Shorelines of the state used or designated for high intensity commercial, industrial, or recreational use; B. Shorelines of the state of lower intensity use, where surrounding land use is urban and urban services are available; C. Shorelines of the state used or designated for multifamily residential development; D. Shorelines of the state used for port activities; E. Shorelines of the state developed for residential purposes and where surrounding land use is urban and urban services are available; F. Shorelines of the state to be designated urban environment shall not have biophysical limitations to development such as floodplains, steep slopes, slide hazard areas and /or marshes, bogs or swamps. (Ord. 3688 § 402, 1978). 25.16.030 General requirements. A. Nonwater related development and residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zones are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a height of thirty -five feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is agricultural, water relay d or water dependent. 25 -13 C. All development shall be required to comply with K.C.C. chapter 9.04 to control runoff and to provide adequate surface water and erosion and sediment control during the construction period. ? D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a natural environment as required open space. E. Parking facilities except parking facilities associated with detached single - family and agricultural development shall conoorr, `o the following minimum conditions: 1. Parking areas serving a lter related or a nonwater related use must be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves. 2. Any outdoor parking area perimeter, excluding entrances and exits, must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum width of five feet. 3. One live tree with a minimum height of four feet shall be required for each thirty linear feet of planting area. 4. One live shrub of one - gallon container size or larger for each sixty linear inches of planting area shall be required. 5. Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parking areas or when large parking areas are proposed. F. Water quality treatment in compliance with K.C.C. chapter 9.04 shall be required where stormwater runoff would degrade or and to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties. G.The regulations of this chanter have been categorized in a number of sections; regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all development must comply with all applicable regulations. H. Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County trail system; or 2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been used for public access. I. Along shorelines of the state on Lake Sammamish, no building shall be placed on lands below thirty -two and one -half feet mean sea level. J. The regulations of this chapter are in addition to other adopted ordinances and rules. Where conflicts exist, that which provides more protection to sensitive area shall apply; except that water dependent uses shall adh re to the applicable regulations and policies of the King County Shoreline Master Program. (Or - i. 13190 § 25, 1998: Ord. 9614 § 111, 1990: Ord. 3688 § 403, 1978). 25.16.040 Agricultural practices. Agricultural practices may be permitted in the urban environment, subject to the general requirements (Section 25.16.030) of this chapter, provided: A. The agricultural activity is per � pitted in the underlying zone classification; B. Any barn, shed or other structure constructed in conjunction with the permitted agricultural activity shall not be constru' ed within the floodway; C.Agricultural activity along shc. of the state shall conform to the best management practices developed pursuant to the I - feral Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and adopted by the King County Soil Conservation Di ct. D. Lagoons, ponds or other wa: retention facilities shall be subject to the same standard as described in subsection B. above. (. d. 3688 § 404, 1978). 25.16.050 Aquatic resource pr a vices. Aquatic resource practices may be permitted in the urban environment subject to the :a neral requirements (Section 25.16.030) of this chapter, provided: A. Any structure placed watery ^, r ri of the ordinary high water mark shall be placed so as not to: 1. Be a significant hazard to n ✓igation; 2. Cause significant damage t neighboring properties; 3. Be a significant hazard to ( . ass who may frequent the area. B. Any byproducts of the aquatic csources facility which are discharged into the water shall not degrade the quality of the recipient .terbody. 25 -14 K. No excavated moorage slips shall be permitted on the Sammamish River. (Ord. 5734 § 4, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 409(6), 1978). 25.16.150 Subdivisions. A. Any existing lot that does not comply with the density and dimensions standards of K.C.C. 21A.12 and located wholly or partially within the shorelines of the state shall be subject to the following provisions: 1. If the adjoining property is not under the same ownership as such lot, then the lot shall be considered a separate building site. 2. If the adjoining property is under the same ownership as such lot, then the lot shall not be considered a separate building site until the lot is combined with adjoining property under the same ownership in such a way as to comply with the density and dimensions standards of K.C.C. 21A.12. B. Submerged land within the boundaries of any waterfront parcel shall not be used to compute lot area, lot dimensions, yards, open space or other similar required conditions of land subdivision or development, except, where specifically authorized by ordinance, such lands may be used in area computations as an incentive to encourage common open space waterfront areas. C.AII newly created lots wholly or partially within the shoreline shall be of uniform size and dimension, whenever possible. (Ord. 11792 § 26, 1995: Ord.3688 § 410, 1978). 25.16.160 Utilities. Utility facilities may be permitted in the urban environment subject to the general requirements section (Section 25.16.030) of this chapter, provided: A. Utility and transmission facilities shall: 1. Avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas; 2. Avoid disturbance of wildlife spawning, nesting and rearing areas; 3. Overhead utility facilities shall not be permitted in public parks, monuments, scenic recreation or historic areas. B. Utility distribution and transmission facilities shall be designed so as to: 1. Minimize visual impact; 2. Harmonize with or enhance the surroundings; 3. Not create a need for shoreline protection; 4. Utilize to the greatest extent possible natural screening. C. The construction and maintenance of utility facilities shall be done in such a way so as 1. Maximize the preservation of natural beauty and the conservation of resources; 2. Minimize scarring of the landscape; 3. Minimize siltation and erosion; 4. Protect trees, shrubs, grasses, natural features and topsoil from drainage; 5. Avoid disruption of critical aquatic and wildlife stages. D. Rehabilitation of areas disturbed by the construction and /or maintenance of utility facilities shall: 1. Be accomplished as rapidly as possible to minimize soil erosion and to maintain plant and wildlife habitats; 2. Utilize plantings compatible with the native vegetation. E. Solid waste transfer stations shall not be permitted within the shorelines of the state. (Ord. 3688 § 411, 1978). 25.16.170 Industrial development. A. The provisions of this chapter apply to industrial and manufacturing types of activit' s in :'uding ports. B. Industrial development n �,y he permitted in the urban environment subject to the general requirements (Section 25.16.030) of try chapter, provided that: 1. The industrial activity is pe -mitt c in the underlying zone classification; 2. The industrial activity shall ! utilize the best techniques in design and siting to prevent the release of contaminants into the adjoining water bodies in order to comply with the water quality standards promulgated under tho provisions of RCW Chapter 90.48; 3. Oxidation and waste stabi•ioat;on ponds shall not be permitted within the shoreline of the state; to: 25 -19 4. The maintenance of he rn' bond of sufficient size to substantiHly = f" C. The height limitations got th nor chapter shall not apply to water deper !o.r: i D. The provisions of this chent- r port facility designed to load or un!oac E. Outside storage of ec; setback of twenty feet from the -; 1 F. Except as provided in aiw shall not be required to maintain G.Water related industrial 'r nme feet from the ordinary high water !nr or I greater. This shoreline setback r. , mark or to the edge of the floe provides limited public access or p hii 7 H. Nonwater related industriil c! - feet from the ordinary high water !nor. greater. This shoreline setback may mark or to ten feet from the edge of t't= development provides limited feet from the ordinary high wate nonwater related development pr;;.m!clt I. Piers, moorages, slips. ficOatr industrial development, provided: 1. The facility will serve 2. The facility does not const;t _rtr nourishment, are not feasible c substantial accessory structure, rn 3. The proposed but!:I connects to adjacent, legally est> 4. The maximum heia' elevation of extreme high watc published by the National Ocear 25.16.180 Shoreline protection-. environment, provided: A. Shoreline protection tc same alignment as the shorelin- abutting the old structure in case problems; B. On lots where the abut :i::: bulkhead may be installed no fur: » It, . that the horizontal distance h one - hundred feet. The manage" adjoining bulkheads, for a distan- the manager shall consider the existence of fish or shellfish resource, t'! - be accommodated by other co f gur. ti shoreland, tideland, or water bott r,t: C. In order for a proposed from the shoreline permit require this program as required by RC` review the proposed design as it ro- master program and must find tl ,r.. 1. Erosion from wave' or residence or one or more subst' -ri r roreline protection shall be placed along the 'icing, but may be placed waterward directly ^ /1 he old structure would result in construction ; f H for the RCW 90.58.030(3) (e) (iii) exemption e that such bulkheads will be consistent with .3uilding and Land Development Division shall ical conditions and the King County shoreline eminently threatening a legally established :tures, and 2. The proposed bull f, tent with the King County shoreline master program in protecting the site p,d , h it he : "tes than feasible, non - structural alternatives such as slope drainage systems, ''r ; .t,. : ;th stabilization, gravel berms and beach r s , protect a legally established residence or • rions may be assured by requiring a performance He cost of a cleanup or rehabilitation effort. =�I requirements section (Section 25.16.030) of this !ustriai development. ,,ot be construed to permit the construction of any oil 25,000 dead weight tons or larger in size. as, materials or supplies shall maintain a shoreline eater mark. i=. above, water dependent industrial development ;thack. t shall maintain a shoreline setback of either twenty n feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is ' , 1 iced either to ten feet from the ordinary high water e ier is greater, if the water related development • lent shall maintain a shoreline setback of either fifty t from the edge of the floodway, whichever is r to twenty feet from the ordinary high water ,'.:whichever is greater, if the nonwater related s! ,oreline setback may be reduced to either ten of the floodway whichever is greater, if the .s. i ng facilities may be permitted accessory to or water related use; z : ' to navigation. (Ord. 3688 § 412, 1978). -, r I i protection may be permitted in the urban sides have legally established bulkheads, a the bulkheads on the abutting lots, provided heads on adjoining lots does not exceed permit a bulkhead to connect two directly -d fifty feet. In making such a determination at land /or water bottom to be covered, the i whether the proposed use or structure could :lkhead which would result in less loss of , '-rward of the ordinary high water mark or it s in subsection B. above, and E :• ,Ikhead is no more than one foot above the determined by the National Ocean Survey • hministration or four feet in height on lakes; North Wind Weir Intertidal Restoration 50 0 50 100 150 Feet GIS Tukwila INDEX maNRY MAP SW 116TH ST SW 128TH ST m S 96TH ST. ' � '• 't7 PROJEC - SITE S BOEING ACCESS RD S 112TH ST \ 1 ! 0 TO SEATTLE N TO TACOMA SHEET 1 2 3 4 5 6 DESCRIPTION VICINITY MAP AND SHEET INDEX LEGEND AND NOTES GRADING PLAN AND NOTES EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SECTIONS AND DETAILS PLANTING PLAN, DETAILS AND NOTES KING COUNTY DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS UV PAM BISSONNETTE DIRECTOR NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION CALL 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1 -800- 424 -5555 SURVEYED: APS -TJS BASE MAP PLOT: APS -MACG DESIGN PLOT: LT. CHECKED: APS -TJS FIELD BOOK: 1075011 8/03 8/03 9/03 8/03 5/03 BY DATE REVISION BY DATE APPROVED: DON R. ALTHAUSER. P.E. DATE: 12/23/03 PROJECT MANAGER: JON HANSEN DATE: 12 2303 DESIGNED: MART( WLGUS DRAWN: L TRAXINGFR DATE: DATE: 12/23/03 12/23/03 PROJECT No. 1A1647 SURVEY No. MAINTENANCE DMSION No. 3 KING COUPITY DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DMSION CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISI11ON SECTION SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNITS NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION VICNTY MAP AND SHAT INDEX SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS MAP -NO 2004 -66(1) 0 0 3 D SURVEYED: APS -TJS 8/03 BASE MAP PLOT: APS -MAGG 8/03 DESIGN PLOT: L.T 9/03 CHECKED: APS -TJS 8/03 FIELD BOOK: 1075011 8/03 BY DATE 0 0 $ D BOUNDARY CEXI TNO, CURRENT SURVEY) BOLNDAJIY (FEMME, curvet:. SURVEY) CENT rE (EXIST143) PROPERTY LIVE MEMO) O) AWNS COMM PA ffU! CONf7EN mamma/mom CURB FENCE, CHAN LEK FENCE WOOD, SPLIT RAL WERMD OJARSI/SWAMP) PERIAETFR IETANNO WALL CONTOUR (MIME) CONTOUR (WED NVEfBANC/SfOFELNE SANITARY SEWER POWER (AMU STOMA DRAINAGE ROHT- OF-WAY COMM WATER VALVE LRUIY POLE ANCHOR ROCK WER SIM MANi01E BLOCK COMER IC 97E6 1L +TACK MONAENT CSIIFAC E3 THE (DECIDUOUS) SANITARY sewn MANHOLE TYPE 1 CJ11CH BASH TESAR+ PRORF OFE IION • SET NAL +SN31 RAILROAD SPICE SION NEW LOG w /ROOTWAD NEW ROOTWAD BY DATE AppRENED DON R. ALTHAUSER, P.E. DATE: 12/23/03 DATE: 12/23/03 DEED MARK WILGUS DATE: 12/23/03 DRAWN: 1. TRAXINGFR DATE: 12/23/03 MANAGER: JON HANSEN 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY WAS TO ILLUSTRATE VISIBLE IMPROVEMENTS. SHOWN HEREON. 2. HORIZONTAL CONTROL (BASIS OF BEARING AND COORDINATES) ARE DERIVED FROM A FAST STATIC GPS SURVEY BASED ON THREE(3) WSDOT MONUMENTS. 2614 N =190033.799, E =1281712.332. ELEV. =23.420, GP17005 -72 3294 N =209324.816. E =1268664.417, ELEV. =16.181, GP17009 -239 2626 N =206301.040, E =1273368.009, ELEV. =17.619. GP17005 -184 AU. VERTICAL CONTROL IS BASE ON NGS /SY0264 APSSM FOUND POSITION: N =223028.637, E =269578.098, WITH PUBUSHED ELEVATION OF 16.20 3. VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, BASED ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE TIDAL BENCH . MARK PIDISY0284 (USGS TIDAL 16), ELEVATION =16.20 4. THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED OCTOBER OF 2002. BOUNDARY NOTES; THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON THE KING COUNTY ASSESSOR PLAT OF THE AREA, AUGMENTED BY THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWING OF S.R. 99. NO TITLE REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO APS SURVEY &MAPPING, LLC. AND ACTUAL PROPERTY LOCATION MAY VARY. PROJECT No. 1A1647 SURVEY No. MAINTENANCE DIVISION No. 3 KING COUNTY DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND' LAND RESOURCES DIVISION CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION SECTION SURFACE WATER - ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNITS NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION GRADING PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND CALL 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1 -800- 424 -5555 SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS MAP -NO 2004 -66(2) NAVD 88 SEATTLE AREA TIDE TABLES MHHW 8.97 11.32 MHW 8.12 10.47 MLW .47 2.82 MLLW —2.35 0 ^ -. NOTE: REPLACE EXISTING FENCE WITH NEW FENCE AROUND PERIMETER, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND LOCKED GATED VEHICLE ENTRANCE AT BEGINNING OF PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. CALL 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1 -800- 424 -5555 SURVEYED: APS —TJS BASE MAP PLOT: ..a— DESIGN PLOT: LT CHECKED: APS —TJS FIELD BOOK. 1075011 PROJECT MANAGER: JON HANSEN APPROVED: DON R. ALTHAUSER. P.E. DESIGNED: MARK WILGUS DRAWN: L TRAXINGER 12/23/03 12/23/03 12/23/03 12/23/03 ROCK ARMORING UGHT LOOSE RIP OVER GEOTEXTIL OSPREY OLE DUWAMISH RIVER FRIER FLOW ■41. EDGE OF MUDFLAT /MARSH SHOULD BE UNDULATED IN THE. FIELD TO INCREASE EDGE HABITAT - 2A PROJECT No 1A1647 SURVEY No. MAINTENANCE DIVISION No. 3 NTERTIDAL MARSH LOCATION PER FIELD OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT, NOT SURVEYED. -zm 1111, 111111111110 Na7T1'S6'E ,": 7,19' • H342 'C1'E f` -a del q 3 ' MIN S TRACK FROM FENCE; 40 VIEWING /AC ESS TRAIL 4 5 WI E O -- - (CRUSHED S'RFACING [v �us.n T BASE-COURSE) �' \ .7�Fi Yr 0 40 • 80 SCALE IN FEET MBR FO 7 En POTENTIAL 10' WIDE HAND— LAUNCHED BOAT RAMP 120 .,9 ATM POTENTIAL EXTENSION OF TRAIL ON CITY UGHT PROPERTY NOTE: WHERE POSSIBLE, SAVE EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES ALONG THE FENCLINE BY OFFSETTING THE BEGINNING OF 1\ JHE CUT AND LOCATING THE CCESS PATH AS DIRECTED B' CING COUNTY ECOLOGIST. KING COUNTY DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DMSON CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION SECTION SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNITS NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION CTRADtki PLAN, NOTES AND LEGEND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCETNOTEI 1. IMPLEMENT THE TESC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. 2. CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION AND REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PADS. 3. EXCAVATE THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE TO DESIGN GRADES LEAVING AN EARTHEN BERM OF EXISTING SOIL AS A BARRIER BETWEEN THE EXCAVATION AND THE • DUWAMISH RIVER. 4. THE EARTHEN BERM WILL A HAVE A MINIMUM TOP WIDTH THAT IS THE GREATER OF 15 FT. OR AS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. SIDE SLOPE OF THE BERM SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 21-k 1 V OR AS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE TOP ELEVATION OF THE EARTHEN BERM WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT HIGHER THAN THE EXPECTED HIGH TIDE ELEVATION THROUGH THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 5. WHERE PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS ARE ENCOUNTERED, OVER EXCAVATE A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET BELOW PETROLEUM TAINTED SOILS AS DIRECTED BY CORPS OR KING COUNTY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER UMITS OF CONTAMINATED SOILS WILL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD AND/OR WITH LAB TESTING PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING. 6. CONTAMINATED SOILS WMU. BE STOCKPILED SEPARATELY AND BE TRANSPORTED TO AN APPROVED DISPOSAL. SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPUCABLE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS. 7. IN AREAS OF OVER EXCAVATION, BACKFILL WITH CLEAN NATIVE MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE CORPS OR KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS. BACKFILL MATERIAL _: - , SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR PLANTING, BUT NEED NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS TOPSOIL IF SUITABLE NATIVE SOIL IS NOT AVAILABLE, BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL OR EQUIVALENT MIX AS APPROVED BY KC OR COE BIOLOGIST. 8. IN AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN FOR VEGETATION, UNSUITABLE EXISTING MATERIAL WILL BE OVEREXCAVATED BELOW DESIGN GRADE TO A DEPTH AS DIRECTED BY CORPS OR KING COUNTY BIOLOGISTS AND BACKFILLED WITH MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR PLANTING. 9. INSTALL LWD PER THE SITE PLAN. 10. HYDROSEED ABOVE MIIWN. PLACE JUTE/COIR FABRIC ON 3:1 SLOPES BELOW MHW. 11. INSTALL PLANTINGS PER THE PLANTING PLAN. 12 REMOVE THE EARTHEN BERM, MAKING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE DUWAMISH RIVER. 13. THE EXCAVATION OF THE EARTHEN BERM SHALL BE TIMED WITH TIDAL CYCLE TO MINIMIZE EROSION. THIS MAY REQUIRE THE BERM TO BE REMOVED IN STAGES. IF THE ENTIRE BERM CANNOT BE REMOVED WHILE THE TIDE IS OUT, THE EXPOSED OPENING AND SIDE SLOPES WILL BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC SHEETING AND ANCHORED DOWN WITH SAND BAGS TO PREVENT EROSION WHEN THE TIDE COMES BACK IN. 14. IF THE EXCAVATION OF THE EARTHEN BERM MUST BE DONE IN STAGES, THEN THE OPENING IN THE EARTHEN BERM MUST BE A MINIMUM OF X FEET WIDE PRIOR TO THE RETURN OF THE HIGHER TIDES (DETERMINED BY HYDRAUUCS ENGINEER), , OTHERWISE ANOTHER METHOD MUST BE CHOSEN. THIS IS TO PREVENT SIDE CUTTING OF THE SLOPES AND EROSION CAUSED BY HIGHER VELOCITIES OF THE ' TIDE FLOWING !NAND OUT OF AN OPENING CHANNEL THAT IS TOO SMALL IN SIZE. ' 15. INSTALLACCESSMEVNNG PATH. 18. INSTALL OSPREY POLE 17. INSTALL HAND LAUNCHED BOAT RAMP. ROO1WAD LEGEND LOG w /ROOTWAD NOTE: TO CONVERT TO SEATTLE AREA TIDE TABLES DATUM, ADD 2.35 FT. SHEET 3 OF 6 SHEETS MAP —NO 2004 -66(3) r CATCH BASIN INSERTS INTERTIDAL MARSH LOCATION PER FIELD OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT, NOT SURVEYED. CLEARING UMiTS «! - �/ !v ate T o\g tir CM AI A SW21'41 L S0UT11 1121H STREET' , 2624.69' ((C 2624PA•) 4 ee- \\ / \ 4 d / 4 /. i 0 • 13 • .POTENTIAL HAND - LAUNCHED BOAT RAMP ACCESS TRAIL- LIGHT PROPERTY R 4 • i r• ' VIEWING /ACCESS tRAIL 5'.WID� C$NC (CRUSHED SURFACING BASE'- COURSt) A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PER KCSWDM FIGURE D.4.G LEGEND: TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOL NAME MULCH SF SILT FENCE (0 -15) CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD SCE STABIUZED CONST. (D -18) ENTRANCE sac SP SEDIMENT POND (0 -23) REFERENCE PAGE REFERS TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STANDARDS APPENDIX D OF THE KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANUAL 1998. $PECW TESC NOTES; 1. SEDIMENT PONDS WILL BE PLACED ON SiTE AS NECESSARY TO CAPTURE SEDIMENT AND SETTLE FINES. 2. CLEAN WATER IN THE EXCAVATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS, MAY BE PUMPED DIRECTLY TO THE DUWAMISH RIVER. 3. EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE THROUGH THE PROJECT EXCAVATION MAY BE ENCOUNTERED. THIS PIPE SHOULD BE REMOVED SO THAT iT IS FLUSH WiTH THE GROUND AT DESIGN GRADE AND A ROCK PAD PROVIDED TO DISSIPATE ENERGY TO A POINT-OF FLAT GRADIENT (LESS THAN 3:1). TEMPORARY PIPING SHOULD DIRECT THIS STORMWATER DIRECTLY TO THE DUWAMISH RIVER WHILE THE PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I 0 40 80 120 SCALE IN FEET * REFERENCE (D -6) Tor TEMPORARY EROSION AND. SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (TESL) NOTES 1. The implementation of these TESC plans and the construction, maintenance, replacement, and upgrading of these TESC facilities is the responsibility of the TESC supervisor until all construction is approved. 2. The boundaries of the clearing limits shown on this plan shall be clearly identified by a continuous length of survey tape (or fencing, if require prior to construction. During the construction period, no disturbance beyond the clearing limits shall be permitted. The clearing limits shall be maintained by the TESC supervisor for the duration of construction. 3. The TESC facilities shown on this plan must be constructed prior to or in conjunction with all clearing and grading so os to ensure that the transport of sediment to surface waters, drainage systems, and adjacent properties is minimized. 4. The TESC facilities shown on this plan are the minimum requirements for anticipated site conditions. During the construction period, these TESC facilities shall be upgraded as needed for unexpected storm events and modified to account for changing site conditions (e.g. additional sump pumps, relocation of ditches and silt fences, etc.) 5. The TESC facilities shall be inspected daily by the TESC supervisor and maintained to ensure continued proper functioning. Written records shall_ be kept of weekly reviews of TESC facilities during wet season (Oct. 1 to March 31) and monthly reviews during the dry season (April 1 to Sept. 30) 6. Any areas of exposed soils, including roadway embankments, that will not be disturbed for two days during the wet season or seven days during the dry season shall be immediately stabilized with the approved TESC methods (e.g., seeding, mulching, plastic covering, etc.). 7. Any area needing TESC measures, not requiring immediate attention, shall be addressed within fifteen (15) days. 8. The TESC facilities on inactive sites shall be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a 'month or 48 hours following a storm event. 9. The clearing operation shall not flush sediment -laden water into the downstream system. 10. Stabilized construction entrances and roods shall be installed at the • beginning of construction and maintained for the duration of the project. Additional measures, such as wash pads may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean for the duration of the project. 11. Where straw mulch for temporary erosion control is required, it shall be applied at a minimum thickness. TESC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. Pre - construction 2. Flag or fence clearing limits. 3. Post sign with name and phone number of TESC supervisor. 4. Grade and install construction entrance(s). 5. Install perimeter protection (silt fence, brush barrier, etc.). 6. Construct sediment ponds and traps. 7. Grade and stabilize construction roads. 8. Construct surface water controls (interceptor dikes, pipe slope drains, etc.) simultaneously with clearing and grading for project development. 9. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with King County standards and manufacturer's recommendations. 10. Relocate erosion control measurers or install new measures so that as site conditions change the erosion and sediment control is always in accordance with the King County TESC minimum requirements. ' 11. Cover all areas that will be unworked for more than seven days during the dry season or two days' during the wet season with straw, wood fiber mulch, compost, plastic sheeting or equivalent. 12. Stabilize all areas that reach final grade within seven days. 13: Seed or sod any areas to remain unworked for more than 30 days. 14. Upon completion of project, all disturbed areas must be stabilized and bumps removed if appropriate. CALL ' 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1 -800 -424 -5555 SURVEYED: APS -TJS BASE MAP PLOT: APS -MAGG DESIGN PLOT: LT. CHECKED: 4 S -TJS FIELD BOOK: 1075011 0/03 8/ 9/0.3 8/03 5/03 BY DATE BY DATE AppROyED: DON R. ALTHAUSER, P.E. DATE: 12/23/03 DATE, . 12/23/03 DESIGNED: MARK WILGl1S DATE • 12/23/03 DRAWN: L TR/ieNnER DATE; 12/23/03 PROJECT IAANAGEFb JON HANSEN PROJECT No. 1A1647 SURVEY No. MAINTENANCE DMSION No. 3 KNQ COUNTY DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES MD PAWS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DMSION CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION SECTION SURFACE WATER - ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNITS NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION EROSION AND EEDIENT CONTROL PLAN SHEET 4 OF 6 SHEETS MAP -NO 2004 -66(4) ^ 4. 15 ^ ^ ^ � —5 ^ . �o �o n 0 .7 ~~ SURVEYED: APS-TJS BASE MAP PLOT: APS-MACG DESIGN PLOT: LT. CHECKED: APS-TJS FRaD BOOK: 1075011 BY 8/03 8/03 9/03 8/03 8/03 DATE ^ ^ ^ ~~ +^ |/m/~ ~^ ^ ^ M A MUM � ,- oo EXISTING ^ ^ ~^ � ^ ~MAWW REVIVON ^mn«wm. DON R.^uxAUvER. P.E. DATE PROJECT MANAGER: JON RANSEN DATE: DEgGNED, MARK WILGUS DATE: 12/23/03 12/23/03 12/23/03 DRAWN. TRAXINGFR pkyr 12/23/03 ^ ^ ^ ^ BY DATE ^ ^ ^ ^ ~- ^ __ �_-__ . � SEaTION 4. ^ � ^ ^ ^ EXISTING GRAD � '" DESIGN ^ ^ 4. ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ PROJECT wv 1AI *w SURVEY No MAINTENANCE DIVISION No. 3 3+00 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ � ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ � ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ MEIH .DESIGN. GRADE NOTE: ��' ���~7 ...., ~'l~~ MLLW = -2.35 . • ^ ^ � ^ ^ ^ ^ __'4,__~___ ^ • SECtION 0-6 24-00 , , � CALL 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU C9G 1 i-800-424- NAVD 88 ^ ERIDIAN ^ t KM COUNTY DEPT, OF NATURA-8ESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION SECTION SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNITS NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ 5 0 ^ ^ ^ 1 R- -_ � SHEET 5 OF 6 SHEETS MAP-NO 2004-66(5) NAVD 88 SEATTLE AREA TIDE TABLES MHHW 8.97 11.32 MHW 8.12 10.47 MLW .47 2.82 MLLW —2.35 0 • it aaaaaaaaai a atuat ;•a .ilk' ilisti kIsixt%col .f=1Ali IOZIoteekil �nittt140 L o-ExlsTllac w . r !�� `� . riANIU \\\\\�\�\\\\\����i�i� 1 Ott r % I f �g:����MIIIMIRAsz�.�� UIRI�\11�A s a ° a e►aauaaaaeasu16aaua • Of NKManktk, ' 4,1 � PER�FIEEL OBSERVATION LOCATION .1 iV MEASUREMENT, NOT SURVEYED I /, NOTE TO CONVERT TO SEATTLE AREA TIDE TABLES DATUM, ADD 2.35 FT. CALL 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DiG 1 -800 -424 -5555 I RIPARIAN/UPLAND PLANTINGS 12 —TOP OF SLOPE TRANSITION: SCRUB /SHRUBS (ELEV. 10 -12) INTERTIDAL EMERGENT COMMUNE? (ELEV. 4 -10) MUDFLAT AREA NO PLANTING PROPOSED (ELEV. —1 TO 4) WILDLIFE NESTING BOX N N /ACCESIKTRA. OURS I BASEL +�ISHED 41V k e-N EDGE OF YUDf .AT/IMRSH SHOULD BE UTAUTATED IN THE f1EW TO INCREASE EDGE HABITAT —1 ELEV. —1 NO PLANTiN MUD FLAT ELEV. NO VEGETATION MUDFLAT NO PLANTINGS MUD FIAT 4 Carex lyngbyei Dechampsia caespitosa Potentilla pacifica 4 r Carex Iyngbyei 95% Potentilia pacifica 5% NOTE: OTHER POTET4L SPECIES Carex microcarpus Carex obnupta Eleocharis spp GENERAL NOTES: 1. ADD 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL TO ALL PLANTING AREAS. TOPSOIL IS TO BE WORKED/TILLED INTO TOP 12 INCHES OF EXISTING SOIL 2. MULCH AREAS ABOVE ELEV. 10 WiTH 3 INCHES WOOD MULCH. L sv 8 Aster Subspicatus Scirpus vafdus INTERTIDAL EMERGENT VEGETATION TYPICAL PLANTING IN EMER NT AR AS EMERGENT AREAS SCRUB —7 Carex Iyngbyei 60X Deschampsia 15% caespitosa Potentilla pacifica 10X Aster subspi•atus 10% Willow Dogwood Cottonwood Nootka rose satmonberry black twinberry hawthorn carpus validus I 10 12 es 0 0 i • 10 O dogwood 0 willow cuttings c© cottonwood 8 RIPARIAN /UPLAND 12 co 1) 6 4 . A�GCF � Alder Snowberry Cottonwood • Thimbleberry Ash 'Ocean Spray Big Leaf Maple Indian Plum Spruce Hazelnut Fir Nootka rose shorepine hawthorn PROJ =.CT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO RESTORE IMPORTANT INTERTIDAL HABITAT WITHIN THE LOWER DUWAMISH RIVER, WITH THE INTENT OF SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING MUDFLAT AND SALTMARSH HABITATS SUITABLE FOR REARING AND FORAGING BY JUVENILE SALMONIDS. THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REGRADING THE PROJECT SITE TO INTERTIDAL ELEVATIONS, RECONNECTING THE SITE TO THE RIVER. RESTORING THE NATURAL SHORELINE, AND PLANTING NATIVE INTERTIDAL AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION. THE RESULTING INTERTIDAL MUDFLAT,SALT MARSH. AND RIPARIAN HABITATS WILL PROVIDE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TRANSITIONAL HABITAT WHERE JUVENILE SALMONIDS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FEED, REST, AND UNDERGO SMOLTIFICATION PRIOR TO OUT - MIGRATING THROUGH PUGET SOUND TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. THESE HABITATS WILL ALSO PROVIDE . IMPORTANT REFUGE. FORAGING. AND PERHAPS BREEDING HABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF OTHER URBAN - ADAPTED NATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES. • STANDARDS OF SUCCESS THE PROJECT WILL BE DEEMED SUCCESSFUL IF THE DESIRED INTERTIDAL HABITATS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES ARE CREATED AND THE SITE DOES NOT EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT BANK EROSION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT RIVERINE SYSTEMS ARE DYNAMIC AND MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN ELEVATIONS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR OVER TIME. CONTINGENCY PLAN IF THE'PROJECT FAILS TO MEET THE STATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, THE DESIGN TEAM WILL EVALUATE THE CONDITIONS AND IN CONSULTATION WITH PROJECT SPONSORS, LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND REGULATORY AGENCIES, W ILL PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES. AS THIS IS A NON - COMPENSATORY. RESTORATION PROJECT. HOWEVER. THE DECISION TO PURSUE FURTHER ACTION THAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROTECT EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. ADJACENT ROADWAYS, UTILITIES OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DESIGN TEAM AND THE PROJECT SPONSORS. SURVEYED: APS —TJS BASE MAP PLOT: APS —MACO DESIGN PLOT: LT. CHECKED: APS —TJS HELD BOOK: 1075011 8/03 8/03 9/03 8/03 8/03 BY DA1E REMSSON BY DATE ApPRO W DON R. ALTHAUSER, P.E. DATE: 12/23/03 M M A JON HANSEN DATE: 12/23/03 DESIGNED: MARK WILGUS DATE: 12/23/03 DRAWN: L TRAXINGEN DATE 12/23/03 PROJECT No. 1A1647 SURVEY No. MAINTENANCE DIVISION No. 3 KNQ COUNTY DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DMSION CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION SECTION SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNiTS NORTH WIND'S WEIR INTERTIDAL RESTORATION PLAMNQ PLAN, DETALS AND NOTES SHEET 6 OF 6 SHEETS MAP —NO 2004 -66(6) NAVD 88 SEATTLE AREA TIDE TABLES J1HHY1 8.97 11.32 MIJJa.--' 8.12 10.47 MLW .47 2.82 MLLW —2.35 O m\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\! \\i����utut,� lu ��'a� �•�W.a a��aanaaaa�aar�aa •n�,�aa T � ritakacaszakims � SOUTH 112TH STR ,/ / ` f !' \ INTERTIDAL MARSH LOCATION PER FIELD OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT. NOT SURVEYED NOTE: TO CONVERT TO SEATTLE AREA TIDE TABLES DATUM. ADD 2.35 FT. CALL. 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1 -800- 424 -5555 SURVEYEEk APS -TJS BASE MAP PLAT: APS -MACG DESIGN PLAT: CIECKElk FIELD BOOK: / a ei iii�i�i�•! RIPARIAN/UPLAND PLANTINGS 12 —TOP OF SLOPE TRANSMON: SCRUB /SHRUBS (ELEV. 10 -12) INTERTIDAL EMERGENT COMMUNITY (ELEV. 4 -10) MUDFLAT AREA NO PLANTING PROPOSED (ELEV. —1 TO 4) APPROVED: DON R. ALTHAUSER. P.t. PROJECT mANAGE JON HANSEN DES MARK W'LG1S DRAWTk L TRAMNGFR DATE: 9/03 are 9/03 LUTE: 0/03 WE: 9/03 %F N \ N SCALE IN FEET PROJECT No. 1A1647 SURVEY No. MAINTENANCE DMSION No. ELEV. —1 NO PLANTINGS MUD FLAT 4 Carex lyngbyei Dechampsia caespitosa Potentilla pocifica NO VEGETATION MUDFLAT NO PLANTINGS MUD FLAT 4 Carex lyngbyei 95% otentilla pacifica 6 5% 1 4 +I sv • 8 Aster Subspicatus Scirpus validus INTERTIDAL EMERGENT VEGETATION TYPICAL PLANTING IN EMERGENT AREAS EMERGENT AREAS SCRUB �` Carex lyngbyei 60% Deschampsia 15% caespitosa Potentilla pacifica 10X Aster subspicatus 10% Willow Dogwood Cottonwood rpus validus 5 10 12 10 O dogwood O willow cuttings cottonwood 8 0 Alder Cottonwood Ash Big Leaf Maple Spruce Fir MG OOLfl' DEPT. OF NATURAL FEROURCEB AND PARKS WATER MD LAW REEIOURCE8 DMSION CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION SECTION SURFACE WATER — ENGINEERING AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES UNITS WINDS SfTE 1 NORTH `INN+ •.GTR. INTERTIDAL RESTORATION R M O PLAN, DETALB APO NOTES e 0 e 0 0 0 � 0 A 12 0 0_ G 0 F 0, ° 0 O RIPARIAN /UPLAND i Snowbery Thimblebeny Ocean Spray Indian Plum Hazelnut • r nF ED , IKV(,gl D EC 0 2003 GENERAL NOTES: PERMIT CENT 1. ADD 6INCHES OF TOPSOIL TO ALL PLANTING AREAS. TOPSOIL IS TO BE WORKED/TILLED INTO TOP 12 INCHES OF EXISTING SOIL 2. MULCH AREAS ABOVE ELEV. 10 WITH 3 INCHES WOOD MULCH. STANDARDS OF SUCCESS THE MITIGATION EFFORT WILL BE DEEMED SUCCESSFUL IF ALL OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE MET. SPECIFIC SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR EACH OF THE GOALS IS OUTLINED BELOW. • BANK EROSION WILL BE MONITORED DURING THE PRESCRIBED 5 YEAR MONITORING PERIOD BY VISUAL OBSERVATIONS MADE FROM THE BANKS. IF MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE BANK IS ACTIVELY ERODING OR THERE IS EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT BANK FAILURE AT ANY POINT IN THE PROJECT REACH. REMEDIAL ACTIONS WILL BE PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTED (IN CONSULTATION WITH DDES AND WDFW) TO STABILIZE THE BANK. • PLANT MATERIALS INSTALLED AT THE MITIGATION SITES SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 80 PERCENT SURVIVAL OVER THE COURSE OF THE MONITORING PERIOD. TO ENSURE THAT A VIABLE RIPARIAN CORRIDOR IS ESTABLISHED. KCDOT BIOLOGISTS MONITORING THE PROJECT SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REPLACE PROBLEMATIC SPECIES OR SPECIMENS DURING THE MONITORING PERIOD WITH OTHER NATIVE SPECIES OF SIMILAR SIZE AND CHARACTER. CONTINGENCY PLAN IF AT THE END OF THE MONITORING PERIOD OR SUBSEQUENT EXTENSION THEREOF. IF THE MITIGATION DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF SUCCESS OUTUNED ABOVE. KCDOT WILL PREPARE A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO OTHERWISE SATISFY THE MITIGATION NEEDS OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. AFTER CONSULTING WITH ODES AND WDFW. THE CONTINGENCY PLAN WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MONITORED AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ORIGINAL PERMIT CONDITIONS OR AS REQUIRED BY PERMITTING AGENCIES. MAP —NO 2004 -66(6)