Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L06-040 - WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - SPECIAL PERMISSION / CRITICAL SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE DEVIATIONNICKEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I -405 BTWN I -5 AND SR 167 SPECIAL PERMISSION c40 L06 -021 Cizj' of Tukwila NOTICE OF DECISION AMENDED TO: Allison Ray, Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director d*nuitr- v-- 2-6Octobcr 17, 2007 This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Revisions to the orirLlinal Notice of Decision are noted in either strikeout or underlined text. Location: the eastern City limits. Associated Files: I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L06 -040 Applicant: Allison Ray, Washington State Department of Transportation Type of Permit Applied for: Special Permission, Director, CRITICAL AREA Sensitive Areas Ordinance Deviations Project Description: Construct improvements along the 1 -405 corridor between 1 -5 and eastern city limits of Tukwila through a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes and construction of a stormwater drainage system. This construction will require the fill of Type 3 Wetlands, the reduction of wetland and watercourse buffers, the discharge of storm water to a Type 2 watercourse, and the transfer of wetland mitigation off -site to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. Repair and realiun Seattle Public Utilities '', titer line alone! a portion ofTuk\\ila Parkway. which will impact a small portion of the buffer for Gilliam ('reek. Comprehensive Plan N/A Designation/Zoning District: Along the north and south sides of the 1 -405 corridor in Tukwila between I -5 and L06 -037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit CL Page I of3 I" Ir . nr: ,' nu .\ I. 7 4u+ P`I Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \Special Permission L06- 040 \L06 -040 Amended NOD.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 L06 -040 Amended Notice of Decision October 16January 26, 2007 • • II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The SEPA Responsible Official for this project is the Washington State Department of Transportation which has previously: IX determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS). Decision on Substantive Permit: The Community Development Director has determined that the application for a deviation from the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to the conditions which are set forth in the Decision based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Provide the name of the Environmental Compliance Manager and a copy of the Environmental Compliance Plan prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide a copy of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures prior to the start of construction. 3. Provide a copy of the landscaping plan for the proposed under -story plantings along Gilliam Creek and the wetland buffer plantings prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a copy of the Best Management Practices required of the contractor prior to start of construction. 5. All areas disturbed by the utility line repair and realignment shall be replanted with native vegetation. This shall be reflected in the landscaping plan to be submitted for review and approval under condition #3. 1. The name of the appealing party. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. One administrative appeal to the Planning Commission of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Planning Commission decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by October 31, 2007. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: CL Page 2 of 3 10 "16'2007 9:32:00 Avl l0-'42-2407 12:57:00 PM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \Special Permission L06- 040 \L06 -040 Amended NOD.doc L06 -040 Amended Notice of Decision October 16Jartuary 26, 2007 Department of Community Development City of Tukwila • • 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Planning Commission based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Planning Commission decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Planning Commission decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Planning Commission decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. � CL 12:57:00441 Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \Special Permission L06- 040 \L06 -040 Amended NOD.doc Page 3 of 3 10 16 2007 9:21 :00 A \11{1.12-2(X 7 EE2 GRIND AND OVERLAY 15% Design NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FILE NAME STPWFILE1 TIME 1.57,11 PM DATE 9/27/2007 PLOTTED BY dbrInknon DESIGNED BY B. HART ENTERED BY C. SAX! RF BE' RE MOAN 10 AD00NDUM - AODEO PERMANENT' IMPWV EINE. 040S/O7 ADOENOUN REVISED PLYANTING AREA • • • S 04Y06/07 ADDENDUm A • RtV MED 114(PACT 'AREA- L r • 0.4406'103 • sun FED.AID PROJ.NO. WASH MOT CHECKED BY L. SMITH PROJ. DIOR. R. FENTON REGIONAL AMT. D. DYE REVISION DATE BY 021111LACTE0. LOCATIM 144 INC IT 111. •,[. 61.0. flar5STAT 405 Corridor Program 1-405 1-5 TO.SR 169 STAGE 1 - WIDENING ALIGNMENT AND PAVING PV3 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION . /, 4,nd& AsIve,ybo HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Number: L nl7 --040 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt 7c! -r Notice of Action • Person requesting mailing: 4/ Y" ` Wft.,/-7 - 7b 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 . bed 0 / Z &44'B7/ • Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /7 day of AI L- in the year 20 D7 P:W DMINISTRATIVEFORMSIFORMS WFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project'Name: iSi20 j .T' Project Number: L nl7 --040 Mailer's Signature: air. .e276 ' i'e- ' (i4e 7c! -r ) Person requesting mailing: 4/ Y" ` Wft.,/-7 - 7b Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /7 day of AI L- in the year 20 D7 P:W DMINISTRATIVEFORMSIFORMS WFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT 111 i () FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC XKC:ASSESSOR'S'OFFICE i, ( s4 ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7UK1ML`A'UBRARY ( ) RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY - () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY Pier I ( ) U.S. ARMY LUKI'J yr cnuu.ccrw () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIORATION () U.S. DEPT O H.U.D. () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLI () NATIOINE FISHERIES SERVICE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY =T w -, ,id- •`1-no,, • S 1 DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ADEPT OF FISHERIES & WMLDUFE o KING COUNTY AGENCIES () OWEST - ( ) SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ()POUCE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK (,y�UGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL j") SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE I ..4 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM FISHERIES PROGRAM ..... 4.11/k Wert WJ.+u✓ ( ) WILDUFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:WDMTNISTRATIV EWFORMSWCHKLIST.DOC ��3 •, iJ °TIL` Ol S' J'\ 5" WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES too vv. yglili EALTH SERV. LAND DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY. SEPA DMSION' ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKUST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILmES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AG r MEDIA c NOS Na b '; 114 ib'r . t- GA,+ 6cLn AA"r S Lel pAAA Sw4 5 Ktu ,n 7e t _ uo IES () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENV!R SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) KC. TRANSIT DMSION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES FOSTER LIBRARY K C PUBUC UBRARY ( ) HIGHUNE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOCt DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOO DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE • ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT /20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT &125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBUC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNNATER DISTRICT a RENTON PLANNING 44: CITY OF SEA -TAC O CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS () TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • N TICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. 14 DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV !M t t 0" F1 CMS J\■ WJC,D , 0u-r h re ack• — enw•t✓o."0 -ev ' Se vd�, OrD o4 Att. N � , Suite, LAAA- Ctao SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts a of mailing) - — Dept. of Ecology Environmental ew 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 Divisi�n —• 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 �r 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 continents may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. P: ADM[MSTRATiVE1FORMS1CHICUST.DOC 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) Comprehensive Plan N/A Designation/Zoning District: CL Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 NOD.doc City of Tukwila NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Allison Ray, Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe I. PROJECT INFORMATION II. DECISION Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number: L06 -040 Applicant: Allison Ray, Washington State Department of Transportation Type of Permit Applied for: Special Permission, Director, Sensitive Areas Ordinance Deviations Project Description: Construct improvements along the 1 -405 corridor between I -5 and eastern city limits of Tukwila through a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes and construction of a stormwater drainage system. This construction will require the fill of Type 3 Wetlands, the reduction of wetland and watercourse buffers, the discharge of storm water to a Type 2 watercourse, and the transfer of wetland mitigation off -site to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. Location: Along the north and south sides of the 1 -405 corridor in Tukwila between I -5 and the eastern City limits. Associated Files: L06 -037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit January 26, 2007 SEPA Determination: The SEPA Responsible Official for this project is the Washington State Department of Transportation which has previously: determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Page 1 of 3 01/25/2007 8:53:00 AM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 L06 -036 Notice of Decision January 26, 2007 CL Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 NOD.doc 0 e 1 determined that the project, as proposed, does not require a threshold determination under SEPA because it qualifies as a planned action pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -172, that the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project were adequately analyzed in the EIS previously prepared for the planned action and will implement the conditions and mitigation measures imposed by the planned action approval. IX determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS), or 1 determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions, or 1 determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project. Decision on Substantive Permit: The Community Development Director has determined that the application for a deviation from the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to the conditions which are set forth in the Decision based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Provide the name of the Environmental Compliance Manager and a copy of the Environmental Compliance Plan prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide a copy of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures prior to the start of construction. 3. Provide a copy of the landscaping plan for the proposed under -story plantings along Gilliam Creek and the wetland buffer plantings prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a copy of the Best Management Practices required of the contractor prior to start of construction. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. One administrative appeal to the Planning Commission of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Planning Commission decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by Page 2 of 3 01/25/2007 8:53:00 AM L06 -036 Notice of Decision January 26, 2007 1. The name of the appealing party. 0 0 The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Planning Commission based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Planning Commission decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Planning Commission decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Planning Commission decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206-431-3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Department of Community Development City of Tukwila CL Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 NOD.doc Page 3 of 3 01/25/2007 8:53:00 AM 0 5 144TH 147TH ST : EGIN : -1 5 47 151ST ST INTERURBAN AVE 5 ST): 5 MITIGATI INGBROOK GATION K RCELS SE 43RD STRANDER PROJECT LOCATION STRANDER BLVD 12gRa 5 21ST ST VICINITY MA PUGET SE 3IST ST 1 WETLAND 0.1R WETLAND 0.15R WETLAND 0.25M WETLAND 0.3R WETLAND 0.4L WETLAND 0.51 WETLAND 0.81 WETLAND 0.9R WETLAND 1.7R PURPOSE: Roadway improvements 9 WETLAND 2.2R WETLAND 2.31R WETLAND 2.8L WETLAND 2.811 WETLAND 2.91 WETLAND 24.7R WETLAND 25.7L WETLAND 25.0L 1O STREAM 09.0R -0.2 11 ® STREAM 09.GR -0.4 12 ® STREAM 09.GR -0.7 13 ® STREAM 09.DW-0.8 14 ® STREAM 09.GR -1.8 15 © STREAM 09.SC -2.8 D ® STREAM 09.SC -2.8 ® STREAM 09.RH -2.8 ® STREAM 09.RH -2.8 10 STREAM 09.SC -2.8 PRING I 0 ck M08,1 -5 to SR189 SR187, 1.405 to 8W 41ST ST REFERENCE Ilk 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT Key Map 3 VIcInity Map ST STREAM 09.RH-3.0 STREAM 09.RH3.0 STREAM 08.LW3.7 STREAM 09.SC -2.8 STREAM 09.SC -25.7 9 FYr ON F JE S4, SW iTH ST � S 5 IB0 TH N 0 0 TD -2015L TD -2035L TD -2045R l41 TD -2047R I5I TD -2050R 2 TD -20541 TD -2108L z 0 161 PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: Zang STATE: WA DATE: 4/26/08 0 0 10 m EI TD -21171 TD -2118L TD -2118R TD -2119L TD -2119R TD -2120R TD -2127L (SOUTH): ONG: - 122 °13'02" LAT: 47 °26'36" 1201 TD -2128L TD -2148L TD -2158L 18 TD -2155L 19 TD -2159L TD -2182R TD -1085L HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83191 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 2 OF 27 Dept. Of Community'Development • City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non- Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt 0 Project Number: L 0 (1 —040 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt y 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 ' . SiE)Y) /AM q; P :W DMINISTRATIVEFORMSWORMS \AFFIDAVITOFD1STRIBUTION' Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a 6 day of .in the year 2007 Project Name: cb © 0 Project Number: L 0 (1 —040 Mailer's Signature: y Person requesting mailing: C Lu_.i.ij_. P :W DMINISTRATIVEFORMSWORMS \AFFIDAVITOFD1STRIBUTION' Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a 6 day of .in the year 2007 FEDERAL AGENCIES ./ r do o r I ' S /� () U.S. ENVIF4 ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY V aidgA LIV IW,l;�{r l j - - Lot ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWA'' MINISTRATION roUS f ! A 0 () U S. DE AL O MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ( ) DEPT OF FISH &WILDLIFE Po 3 - 5 `7 SS WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () OFFICE F ARCHAEOLOGY SZA -' U () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. VV S hY 1 2 ,0- 3'�!i () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV '� 9 j� DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' () OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TRADE () DEPT OF FISHERIES WILDLIFFE ECONOMIC C DEV. • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ON NS KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 • () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K. DEPT OF PARKS & REC • :C7AASSESSOR PEFICE L3 () TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ✓ TUKWIIA•LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () OWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () POLICE () PLANNING () PARKS & REC. () CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE XMUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( tin.. FISHERIES PROGRAM )� () WILDLIFE PROGRAM () SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: W D M IN ISTRATTV E \FORMS \CHICLIST. DOC ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ()MAYOR SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES MEDIA () HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE () K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES >FOTTII L 8R/1RY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERIWATER DISTRICT ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CLTUKWILA.WA.US.WWW OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES 4 4 . DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER RENTON PLANNING DEPT () TTYOFSEA-TAO' ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS () CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCW () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF AU. SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. 412'1442 eicn- A -‘" -s - , 40 7 — Prow ettuutnt j'►a S4( 4 o l o$ g' AA. 1,1t I Su e 465 15 IIPVoQ , c R g o -F CADM % 6 i)11,6- tare-Tis P :1 ADM [NISTRATIVE1FORMS\C}4KLIST.DOC PL IC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PETS 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 Iist) *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 Attornev 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' - 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) Carol Lumb - Revised Notice of Decisio, From: Carol Lumb To: joseph .pursley @i405.wsdot.wa.gov Date: 10/17/2007 12:33 pm Subject: Revised Notice of Decision Hi Joe: We are mailing today the revised Notice of Decision and a staff report for the new work that will take place in the Gilliam Creek buffer along Tukwila Parkway. I will attach the documents below but they will not be on letterhead or have the signature of our Acting Director. If you have any questions, please give me a call or e-mail. Just FYI, I am out of the office this afternoon through the end of the week, but then back on Monday. By any chance did you talk to the Muckleshoot Tribe about this revision? I have not contacted Karen Walter about this, but she will receive a copy of the amended decision. The Notice of Decision includes the previous conditions of approval for the Special Permission application, plus one additional condition, that native plants be used in the areas that are replanted after being disturbed. Could you please let me know when you think we will be getting the items identified in the first 4 conditions? I remember that there will be a short turn around on the landscaping plan review, so I want to make sure Sandra Whiting in our office will be available when the plan comes in. thanks. Carol Page 1 October 12, 2007 City of Tukwila FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Pa'at n r MEMORANDUM CL Page 1 of 2 Q:\Nickcl Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director - Revision.doc TO: Jack Pace, Acting Director, I)ep}artment of Community Development RE: Addendum to Staff Report, dated January 24, 2007 for L06-040, WSDOT I- 405 Nickel Fund Project Special Permission, Director, Request to Fill Type 3 Wetlands; Alter a Type 2 Wetland and Approve Off -Site Mitigation On January 26, 2007, the City of Tukwila issued a Notice of Decision approving the request of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to permanently impact three Type 3 wetlands, a Type 2 wetland and impact the buffer area for Gilliam Creek. These sensitive areas will be impacted as a result of improvements to be constructed along I -405 between I -5 and the Cedar River in Renton. The improvements include a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes and construction of a stormwater drainage system. The highway widening involves cutting into banks and filling depressions within the highway prism. A new storm water pond will be constructed near the intersection of I -5 and I -405, and will discharge to Gilliam Creek, impacting the creek and its buffers. The approval of these impacts and acceptance of mitigation measures by WSDOT was through a Special Permission Director land use application, L06 -040. The mitigation for wetland impacts will be transferred to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank site in Renton. See Attachments A and B, staff report dated January 24, 2007 and the Notice of Decision dated January 26, 2007 for L06 -040. During final review of corridor utilities prior to beginning construction of the road improvements, a Seattle Public Utilities waterline was identified along Tukwila Parkway and proposed for repair and realignment. This work will result in temporary impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffer in an area that was not part of the original sensitive area impact review. The temporary impacts to the stream buffer total 1,430 square feet. There also Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 10/11/2007 12:37 :00 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 r L06 -040, Special Permission Director Addendum to 1/24/07 Staff Report October 12, 2007 ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATION Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: • 0 will be temporary impacts to upland vegetation (outside the buffer area) totaling 2,288 square feet of disturbance. WSDOT proposes to replace all disturbed soils and vegetation with plant communities that mimic pre - project conditions. As a condition of approval of this revision to the Special Permission Director application, WSDOT will be required to re -plant disturbed areas with native vegetation appropriate for improving stream buffer functions. 1. WSDOT received approval through a Special Permission Director land use application to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands; construct a new surface water discharge to a sensitive area (Gilliam Creek); reduce and alter both wetland and watercourse buffers and locate the majority of the mitigation for wetland impacts outside the City of Tukwila. 2. During final review of corridor utilities prior to beginning construction of the road improvements, a Seattle Public Utilities waterline was identified and proposed for repair and realignment. This work will result in temporary impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffer in an area that was not part of the original sensitive area impact review. The temporary impacts to the stream buffer total 1,430 square feet and temporary impacts to upland vegetation (outside the buffer area) total 2,288 square feet of disturbance. 3. Native plants will be use to replace vegetation in the buffers and upland areas that are disturbed by the water line repair and realignment, in order to improve buffer function over existing conditions. Staff recommends the following additional condition for L06 -040, to be added to the 4 conditions originally approved under this land use application: 5. All areas disturbed by the utility line repair and realignment shall be replanted with native vegetation. This shall be reflected in the landscaping plan to be submitted for review and approval under condition #3. January 24, 2007 Staff Report for L06 -040, Special Permission Director January 26, 2007 Notice of Decision for L06 -040 CL Page 2 of 2 10/11/2007 12:37:00 PM Q: \Nickel Fund improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director - Revision.doc Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects October 3, 2007 Carol Lumb, AICP Senior Planner City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 -2544 Dear Ms. Lumb: 600 - 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Main 425 -456 -8500 Fax 425 -456 -8600 . . CON.. DEVELOP►1GENT Re: Request for a review and possible permit modification to the Special Permission, Director, Sensitive Area Ordinance Deviations, Permit #L06 -040, for the I -405, I -5 to SR 169, Renton Nickel Improvement Project The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently designing and constructing traffic improvements within the I -405 corridor right -of -way (ROW) that are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Tukwila. During final review of corridor utilities a Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) waterline was identified and proposed for repair and realignment. A review of adjacent resources revealed potential temporary stream buffer impacts and temporary upland vegetation impacts that were not previously permitted under our January 26 2007, Special Permission, Director, Sensitive Area Ordinance Deviations, Permit #L06 -040. The I -405 Team would like to request a review of the proposed activities and if necessary obtain a modification to the January 26 2007 Permit #L06 -040 to include the temporary impacts associated with the realignment of the SPU waterline. The SPU water -line location and proposed activities are shown in the attached plan sheet (PV3) and the associated impacts are discussed below. All resources were evaluated using existing land cover files and were verified in the field at the proposed activity location. All proposed impacts to existing resources will be temporary. Vegetated areas within the impact area include primarily maintained grasses and roadside weeds. Temporary impacts to stream buffer total 1,430 square feet and temporary impacts to upland vegetation total 2,288 square feet of disturbance. No trees over 6 inches at dbh will be cut or removed as a result of these proposed activities. All disturbed soils and vegetation will be replanted to mimic pre - project plant communities. During construction activities, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be used to minimize erosion from wind or water. BMP's will be maintained and monitored until the disturbed areas are stabilized. g- • 0 Please accept this letter as an official request from WSDOT for a review of the proposed activities and if necessary a modification to the January 26 2007, Special Permission, Director, Sensitive Area Ordinance Deviations, Permit #L06 -040 for the 1-405, 1-5 to SR- 169 — Renton Nickel Improvement Project. Thank you in advance for taking the time to process our request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Joseph R. Pursley at (425) 456 -8605 or j oseph .pursley(a,i405.wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, f\AAA VA -11 0 bl\ Allison Hanson UCO, Deputy Director – Environmental Services 206.716.1136 hansona @wsdot.wa.gov Attachment Attachment 1: Plan Sheet PV3 2 • 14. • - - - • I. 9•'.11 -..."-**!"-..•-•*•-•VLX1X:•IVE11.5.101%•5:1197.•_•.-.01.10.1■•:5119.1.9.1.*:-.9:401..x...MIXkli • • • • .99 ST ••••-- - - 0405 1100.67.99 CS 04051102- 0,01 • — L - i -14 . - 0 S- M ws'o+44.••,_ REI ING_Jiiir TOOlk _______ 1: - - FEnm.nENT ,11FACYINEA CINE — RETAINING MI 4009 0 — ovW - - • •••-.14,... 1,1•74.4 1-405 1-5 TO.SR 169 STAGE I - WIDENING a GRIND AND OVERLAY PILE ILLAIE 111PATILE1 1110E 1107111 PM DATE 9/E1/2007 PLOTTED 07 00rIn6man DESIGNED BY B. HART ENTERED BY C. SAXE CHECK EQ 01 L. 5111 TH PROJ. ENGR. R. FENTON REGIONAL ADM. D. 090 , 4 ;17 ic• d /P&L. * * 4 44.7 1511110 IMPERVIOUS tilg 111E- - OVERL - 1111A PAVEMENT - MOMENT SLAB CCRICRETE SIDEWALK CE PCCP PANELS REVISION DATE OF ARV 1I11'ACTS ADOE.Durcevg..DDED&PEDHAmENTiquir.cuowE•i 04/06Z0/.1 NF,1 Mgr lux* XDOE1111014749=1REVISE07PCANTINGTAREALL199Pla 04Y05ZOT) RFJ n ADDENDUM 4 1 , *KEV1 5E011 WAG VAREA1CINEOXF 04r/0001 PED.AIO PROJ.NO. v... 1t_ MI M. 59 m• pc. MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET PV3o ALIGNMENT AAI0 PAVING lal 100 SC 4)...en• 15Y. Design PV3 1 -405, SR 181 and SR 167 Ramp and Safety Improvement Project SEPA DNS Carol Lumb - I -405, SR 181 and SR 167 Ramp and Safety Improvement Project SEPA DNS From: "Katie Chamberlin" < katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 04/11/2007 2:31 PM Subject: I -405, SR 181 and SR 167 Ramp and Safety Improvement Project SEPA DNS CC: "Jason McKinney" <JMcKinney @HNTB.com >, "Allison Ray" <allison.ray @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> Hi Carol, Per our phone conversation a couple minutes ago, I have attached the DNS and the Environmental Classification Summary used by WSDOT as the SEPA checklist for your review. Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this issue. Thanks and have a good day! Katie «Ramps_D N S_ECS_Combined. pdf» Page 1 of 1 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings\ Temp\ XPGrpWise \461CF126tuk- mail6300 -... 04/19/2007 Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Fax To: Fax: Phone: Re: ❑ Urgent *Comments: ,a ✓ev\ k a (4-ei/ 253 q,51 -0 s�v \ ❑ For Review r FOR Ka 4& Wak'4- M DATE 41 TIME(l,'/ OF PHONE ❑ BILE 2- - 13 _ 0 5 2. AREA COOS NUMBER EXTENSION MESSAGE N45 4YrIr � * 4wy �` — At11 1 It NED PHONED RETURNED`` YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU TO FOPS n,A , +�����&t]U . FORM 4003, From: Date: w , 062-44 Pages: y - II -o z - ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle K ��'Utwk -vl(�4 �v / r ykc 'ec3t(e 1 A/- 4 .246,V `d. G�CCtr� vG2t, Ct 7( Sc) et S Let1A- _sl'Ac -- J I o 0 I <<' PHONE . Au ,1 RB.CS-SPI81 1.•92:95 PC BEGIN PAVING E181 20.06.08 i:; v " , o r EEGIN PAVING` , ° ' ,t r • , ., / FIRE -.8.05 12•vO.O T fi. ',4 ., % / S 8O•2j03M 4, IOC YEAR EL 000 FILE NAME s1 PWFILEI TIRE 7!17!.3 PM_ __ DATE 2 PLOTTED BY chrlss DESIGNED BY B. .ART ENTERED 8' _ C. SAXE CHECAEO BY t. SHI1N PROJ. ENGR. R. TENTON REGIONAL AOM. 0. 0TE C. 9R v13405•SR181 I5•91 •` SR181 -00400 11 ...1A PC 181 :0.78.28 PT • M S, j 1 � / L � 1 , � 1 , ; ( Y � � REVISION MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET PO4 HAMPTON '.NN END CONSTRUCTION" E 1 B4 2.0 +06:08 81 -08.09 {0•00.00 00B N8•05'5R181 17.69.E9•POE. - J`Fr � � � . , END PAY IN, (181 16.89.00 1 4 1 1 OMTE BO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION E181 13 +14.08 mgT- 10 WASH a ..ec. FED.AID PROJ.NO. TOTAL CURVE DATA P.I. STATION DELTA N8405-55101 15.91.51 .8 "L %0 Leo 1=� RADIUS 220.00 TANGENT 98.5 PAVING LEGEND; CURVE DATA LENGTH C OELTA 185.77 I - REMOVE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS F� r� �Ph�- � — PCCP APPROACH SLAB 64�a,,���ii? - CEMENT CONCRETE SIDENAL0 �y - NMA OVEPLA0 - REPLACE PCCP PANELS �T7-TTan - NMA PAVEMENT - GRIND AND OVERLAT . MOMENT SLAB A ch w e t 1 t-_ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I -405 1 -5 TO SR 169 STAGE 1 - WIDENING ALIGNMEN' AND PAVING 15% Design SPIRAL OATH DE Ls 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET PV40 Adak Washington State ®1" Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation March 07, 2007 Mr. Steve Boch Federal Highway Administration 915 2nd Avenue Room 3142 Seattle, WA 98174 Re: 1-405, I -5 to SR 169 Ramp /Safety Improvement Project Dear Mr. Boch: Northwest Region 1 5700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle. WA 98133 -9710 206 4404000 TTY: 1-800- 833 -6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is proposing to widen three existing ramps along 1 -405 at the SR181 and SR167 interchanges in the cities of Renton and Tukwila to address both safety improvements and traffic operations (Attachment 1). WSDOT has prepared this no effects letter in response to proposed, threatened, and endangered species listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as having the potential to be in the proposed project vicinity during construction. The project will be constructed within WSDOT right of way along the existing SR18I and SR167 on and of ramps to 1 -405 at mileposts 0.90 and 2.20. The project is located in Section 24 of Range 4E and Section 19 of Range 5E, in Township 23N (HUC# 1711001300). Project description The ramp improvement at the SR 181 interchange involves widening the off -ramp from northbound I-405 to SR 181. In addition, the on -ramp from SR 181 to northbound 1 -405 will be widened to accommodate an HOV by -pass as well as a ramp meter and new signal cabinet. A new traffic signal with a dual protected left turn arrow will be added to SR 181 (Attachment 2). The ramp improvement at the SR 167 interchange involves widening the on -ramp from southbound SR 167 to southbound I-405 (Attachment 3). A new ramp meter and signal cabinet will also be installed. Construction will take place between July 2007 and June 2010. The project will add a total of 24,123 square feet of impervious surface. The Highway Runoff Manual will be followed to provide detention and treatment for the new impervious surface. All new and some existing impervious surface will be treated for both water quality and flow control. New ecology embankments will provide water quality treatment and reduce pollutant concentrations entering receiving water bodies. Flow control will be provided by constructing a new detention pond within the southwest quadrant at the SR 181 interchange (TDA 1), which will tie into an existing culvert that discharges to the Nelson Side Channel. An existing detention pond on the south side of I -405 at MP 1.90 ('I DA 2) will be modified to accommodate additional runoff, which is conveyed through pipes, ditches, and culverts from the interchange west to Springbrook Creek. No new outfalls will be constructed for this project. Stormwater analysis for the proposed project used the high risk criteria because the project will support traffic volumes in excess of 60,000 average daily vehicle trips. Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed project will result in a minor increase in total mass loading of dissolved zinc and dissolved copper (0.I pounds per year for each). However, the project will result in reduced concentrations of all pollutants in stormwater runoff at the project level and within both threshold discharge areas, meaning that the proposed project will result in no net increase in the exposure of aquatic receptors to any of the five water quality parameters of concern. Refer to Attachment 4 for a detailed stormwater pollutant loading analysis. Best management practices and minimization measures The following BMPs and minimization measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts during project activities: • A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (I ESC) Plan and a Source Control Plan will be developed and implemented for all projects requiring clearing, vegetation removal, grading, ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The BMPs in the plans will be used to control sediments from all vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. The contractor will designate at least one employee as the erosion and spill control (ESC) lead. The ESC lead will be responsible for the installation and monitoring of erosion control measures and maintaining spill containment and control equipment. The ESC lead will also be responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, state, and federal erosion and sediment control requirements. WSDOT policy and construction administration practice is to have an inspector on site during construction. The role of the inspector will ensure that the contract and permit requirements are met. Vegetation will only be grubbed from areas undergoing permanent alteration and for temporary construction access. All areas grubbed for temporary construction access will be replanted with predominantly native vegetation when construction is completed. Project staging and material storage areas shall be located a minimum of 150 feet from surface waters and sensitive areas, or will be situated in currently developed areas such as parking Iots or managed fields. • No paving, chip sealing or stripe painting will occur during periods of rain or wet weather. • Ecology embankments will provide enhanced water quality treatment for all new and some existing impervious surfaces. • Flow control will be provided to ensure no adverse impacts to receiving water bodies. 2 Existing conditions The project area is highly urbanized and contains very little vegetation. Disturbance levels are high due to large volumes of highway traffic. Land use surrounding the project area is a mix of residential and commercial. Vegetation to be cleared consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus), as well as landscaped grass/shrub areas within the median and WSDOT right of way. The SRI 81 interchange is approximately 300 feet from the Green River and adjacent to the Nelson Side Channel. The channel is the old alignment of the Green River prior to construction of I -405 and no longer has any surface water connection to the river. Action area The project component with the greatest extent of impact is noise generated by construction equipment. Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are high due (-86 dBA) to traffic volumes associated with 1-405. Equipment to be used for this project includes trucks, backhoes, pavers, front loaders, and graders, which produce noise levels of approximately 90 dBA. Construction noise is expected to subside to ambient levels within approximately 150 feet of the source; therefore, the action area for the project extends 150 feet from the project footprint. Species occurrence The National Marine Fisheries Service website lists the potential presence of Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) stcelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the project vicinity. The USFWS King County species listing lists the potential presence of Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the project vicinity. The possible presence of listed species was further evaluated by reviewing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database. Websites and PHS data were accessed on February 21, 2007. A WSDOT biologist visited the project area on February 21, 2007 to determine the status and availability of suitable habitat for listed species in the action area and to evaluate any potential impacts of the proposed project. Within the project action area there is no potential suitable habitat for any listed species. The PHS database does not indicate any listed species within the action area. Puget Sound Chinook The project is located near the Green River and Springbrook Creek. Chinook salmon have been documented in both water bodies. However, the project involves no in -water work or impacts to the Green River or Springbrook Creek. Therefore, the project will have no effect on Chinook salmon. Steelhead On March 29, 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed to list Puget Sound steelhcad under the Endangered Species Act. Steelhead have been documented in both the Green River and Springbrook Creek. Because the project's stonnwater treatment and 3 detention facilities will result in no adverse effects on the water quality or hydrology of either system, and there is no in -water work, WSDOT concludes that the proposed project will not jeopardize the continued existence of steelhead. If steelhead are listed before the completion of the proposed project, the effect determination will be no effect on steelhead. Bull trout Bull trout have never been documented in Springbrook Creek and only rarely in the Green River. Because the project involves no in -water work or impacts to the Green River it will have no effect on bull trout. Bald Eagles There are no documented bald eagle nests, nesting territories, or wintering areas within one mile of project activity. Foraging opportunities along the Green River, which is approximately 300 feet from the SR181 ramp and outside the action area, are limited. Because existing disturbance levels in the action area are already elevated due to 1-405 traffic, bald eagles in the action area are already accustomed to high levels of noise. No suitable habitat or prey species will be affected by the project. Therefore, the project will have no effect on bald eagles. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The Pacific Fishery Management Council manages the fisheries for Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon and has defined EFH for these species to include all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington. There is no EFH within the action area therefore, this project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat for the Pacific Salmon Fishery. Critical Habitat Designations Puget Sound ESU Chinook Critical Habitat On August 12, 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced the impending publication of Final Rules Designating Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. These rules were published on September 2, 2005 (50 CFR Part 226), and became effective on January 2, 2006. Critical habitat for Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon is designated for areas containing the physical and biological habitat features, or primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential for the conservation of the species or which require special management considerations. Six PCEs have been identified for Chinook salmon critical habitat, including freshwater spawning, freshwater rearing, freshwater migration, estuarine areas, nearshore marine areas, and offshore marine areas. The project involves no in -water work and there is no Chinook salmon critical habitat within the action area. Therefore, this project will have no effect on proposed Chinook salmon critical habitat. Coastal -Puget Sound Bull Trout Critical Habitat 4 On September 26, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a Final Rule Designating Critical Habitat for the Coastal Puget Sound Population of Bull Trout, which was listed as a threatened species in 1999. This rule became effective on October 26, 2005. For an area to be included as critical habitat it has to provide one or more of the following functions for bull trout: (1) spawning, rearing, foraging, or over - wintering habitat to support essential existing bull trout local populations; (2) movement corridors necessary for maintaining essential migratory life history forms; and/or (3) suitable habitat that is considered essential for recovering existing local populations that have declined or that need to be re- established to achieve recovery. The project involves no in -water work or impacts to water bodies in the action area; therefore this project will have no effect on bull trout critical habitat. Conclusions WSDOT has determined that the I -405, I -5 to SR 169 Ramp /Safety Improvement Project will have no effect on Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon, Coastal -Puget Sound DPS bull trout, or bald eagles, and will not jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound steelhead. Additionally, the project will have no adverse effect on Essential Fish habitat for the Pacific Salmon Fishery, and no effect on Chinook salmon or bull trout critical habitat. Project components that support this determination include: • No listed species or critical habitat have been documented in the action area. • No suitable habitat for any listed species exists within the action area. • Ambient noise levels within the action area are high. • The project involves no in -water work. • There will be no impacts to water quality or peak flows to any receiving water bodies. It is our understanding that this satisfies WSDOT's responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. We will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared to re- evaluate potential project impacts, if necessary. Please contact George Ritchotte by phone at (206) 464 -1210 or by email at ritcho wsdot.wa.gov if you require additional information or have any questions. Sincerely, Michelle Steinmetz Biology Program Manager for the Urban Corridors Office Attachments: Vicinity maps Stormwater pollutant loading analysis cc: Jason McKinney, 1-405 Project Office 5 Attachment 1. I -405, I -5 to SR 169 Ramp /Safety Improvement Project vicinity. Ji: ' '! -rind Attachment 2. Proposed improvements at I- 405/SR181 interchange. • f 4 l ;. • 9 3l . n •. iii '1 •• { - 1- t _ - • J i t i p f !, �fyr i .w•r+ ?- ,•.,. �/ .c:/r•!.'.'%"!��' / I//!•lll lf// %liif /Il.%Ji /! Attachment 3. Proposed improvements at the I- 405 /SR167 interchange. Attachment 4. Pollutant loading analysis. THRESHOLD DISCHARGE AREA (TDA) TOTAL (acres) 1 1 2 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PRE - PROJECT Existing treated impervious surface with discharge to waterbody (acres) 8.39 0.70 9.09 Existing impervious surface Infiltrated (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Existing untreated impervious surface (acres) 22.82 16.39 39.21 Total existing impervious surface (acres) 31.21 17.09 48.30 POST - PROJECT Existing impervious surface retrofitted for treatment with discharge to waterbody (acres) 0.11 0.42 0.53 Existing impervious surface retrofitted for Infiltration (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 NEW IMPERVIOUS New treated impervious surface with discharge to waterbody Jacres ) 0.34 0.20 0.54 New impervious surface infiltrated (acres) 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 New untreated impervious surface (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total new impervious surface (acres) 0.43 0.13 0.56 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS Total impervious surface area untreatedyost- project (acres) 2271 8.93 0.00 15.97 1.25 0.00 38.68 10.16 0.00 Total Impervious surface area treated post - project with discharge to waterbody (acres) Total impervious surface area Infiltrated (acres) Attachment 4. Pollutant loading analysis. TDiA BREAKDt? • TSS . • TOTAL ZINC • • DISSOLVED ` . - -ZINC - TOTAL ' : COPPER DISSOLVED COPPER - TDA 9 22,562.70 45.68 17.50 8.43 2.40 Annual effluent load from existing impervious surfaces prior to project (lbs) 13,270.85 13,228.95 27.45 27.48 10.81 10.85 5.11 5.12 1.50 1.51 Annual effluent load from new and existing impervious surfaces after project (Ibs) NET CHANGE lbs -41.90 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 TDA 2 Annual effluent bad from existing impervious surfaces Erior to project (Ibs) 9,291.85 9,082.45 18.23 17.94 6.70 6.65 3.32 3.28 0.89 0.89 Annual effluent load from new and existing impervious surfaces after project (Ibs) NET CHANGE (Ibs) - 209.40 -0.29 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 PROJECT TOTAL ' TSS • TOTAL ZINC D . • • • • ZINC • 0 . T OTAL'." COPPER `DIS SOLVED COPPER Annual effluent load from existing impervious surfaces prior to project (lbs) 22,562.70 45.68 17.50 8.43 2.40 Annual effluent load from new and existing impervious surfaces after project (Ibs) 22,311.40 45.39 17.50 8.40 2.41 NET CHANGE in pollutant Toads between pre- and post - project conditions (Ibs) - 251.30 -0.28 0.00 -0.04 0.01 LOAD. RATE - . °..7. TSS TOTAL ZINC DISSOLVED ZINC . • TOTAL : COPPER ,DISSOLVED : COPPER Mean annual load from untreated surfaces (Ibs /acre) 585 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.053 Mean annual Toad from treated surfaces (Ibs /acre) 45 0.28 0,2 0.065 0.035 LOAD CALCULATIONS TDA BREAKDOWN TSS (mg/L) TOTAL ZINC (ugiL) DISSOLVED ZINC (ug /L) TOTAL COPPER (ug /L) DISSOLVED COPPER (ug /L) TDA1 158.50 298.74 97.73 50.15 12.83 Pollutant concentration for runoff PRE- project 144.15 273.92 92.47 46.37 12.33 Pollutant concentration for runoff POST- project 141.13 270.71 91.73 45.83 12.26 NET CHANGE -2.02 -3.22 -0.74 - 0.53 -0.07 TDA 2 Pollutant concentration for runoff PRE- project 184.71 338.41 107.33 57.07 13.75 Pollutant concentration for runoff POST- project 179.41 329.39 105.02 55.41 13.53 NET CHANGE -6.30 -10.01 -2.31 -1.66 -0.22 PROJECT TOTAL TSS (mg/L) TOTAL ZINC (ug/L) DISSOLVED ZINC (ug/L) TOTAL COPPER (ug /L) DISSOLVED COPPER (ug :Pollutant concentration for runoff PRE-project 158.50 298.74 97.73 50.15 12.83 Pollutant concentration for runoff r:POST- project 154.97 291.13 98.44 49.22 12.71 NET CHANGE In pollutant concentration between pre- and : post- project conditions -3.53 -5.61 -1.29 -0.93 -0.12 CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS - High Risk Projects TSS (mg/L) TOTAL ZINC (ug/L) DISSOLVED ZINC (ug/L) TOTAL COPPER (ug/L) DISSOLVED COPPER (ug/L) Expected pollutant concentrations for UNTREATED runoff 192 350 110 59 14 Expected pollutant concentrations for TREATED runoff 14 67 44.8 12 7.8 CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS - High Risk Projects I.EGQN0: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION 1,76 /?407 10,51:0e 7.0 etevons Px: �Engineer ;ng∎515.Aeoe.ar" ySdra.; n49'ekt+i0 l t•••roposea Iaprovemen /s.agn • 3 o eoo If00 SCALE IN rUT JANUARY 28. 2008 .,.‘,405 Corridor Program to SK 169 Project Safety Improvements Carol Lumb - I -405, I -5 to SR 169 Project Safety Improvements From: "Katie Chamberlin" < katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 02/28/2007 2:36 PM Subject: 1-405,1-5 to SR 169 Project Safety Improvements CC: "Laura Smith" <lnsmith @HNTB.com >, "Allison Ray" < allison.ray @i405.wsdot.wa.gov >, "Jason McKinney" <JMcKinney @HNTB.com >, "Ross Fenton" <Ross.Fenton @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> Hi Carol, Page 1 of 1 I've obtained additional information on the topic I brought up with you this morning. The additional work being proposed in the WSDOT right -of- way (ROW) within the City of Tukwila consists of widening the northbound 1 -405 off and on -ramp at SR 181. This location has been identified as a high accident location (HAL), and it is WSDOT's policy that for roadway projects occurring in the same area as a HAL, the project needs to address making improvements to the HAL. The 1 -405 Project Team was only recently told of the need to improve this HAL; therefore, when the 1 -405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Project permit application came to you for review, improvements to the HAL at the I- 405 /SR 181 Interchange were not part of the proposed design. Widening of the ramps will occur solely within the WSDOT ROW, and will not result in any permanent impacts to wetlands or streams; however, widening of the off -ramp will permanently impact approximately 3,000 square feet of the buffer of Wetland 0.9R (the Nelson Side Channel). While efforts were made to minimize impacts to this buffer, design options are very limited due to the location of the existing roadways. To mitigate for these buffer impacts, the 1 -405 Project Team proposes to enhance the 80 -foot buffer of Wetland 0.9R within the WSDOT ROW at a 1 :1 ratio. Once the permanent impacts to the buffer of Wetland 0.9R have occurred, approximately 3,000 square feet of buffer area will remain within the WSDOT ROW, so achieving a higher enhancement ratio is not possible in this location. If not all of the 3,000 square feet of the required buffer enhancement can be provided within the remaining buffer area of Wetland 0.9R, the wetland buffer enhancement area will extend to the north of the 80 -foot buffer (towards 1 -405) along the western edge of the WSDOT ROW. Please see Attachment 1 to this email for a plan sheet showing the maximum wetland buffer enhancement area. Similar to the other wetland buffer enhancement area proposed as part of the 1 -405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Project, the wetland buffer will be planted with native wetland buffer species, such as Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, Snowberry, Redtwig Dogwood, Red - flowering currant, Scouler's willow and Cascara. Native wetland buffer plant species will be planted in areas of sparse vegetation or limited ground cover. Native plants will be planted on 4- to 6 -foot centers where possible; however, the placement and spacing of the plants will vary to minimize mortality through competition with existing native species. Our goal is to supplement existing native vegetation and increase the diversity of species. Thanks, Carol, for your patience and flexibility in working with our team through the frequent changes that have become the norm for this project! Take care, Katie «Attachment 1.PDF» Katie Chamberlin I -405 Project Team Permit Lead 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA, 98004 Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 Fax: (425) 456 -8600 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings\ Temp\ XPGrpWise \4610ED5Etuk- mail6300... 04/19/2007 Carol Lumb - Notice of Decision From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Katie: I'm attaching the Notice of Decision and staff report for the Special Permission Director application, which includes the conditions of approval. The hard copies with signature on the Notice of Decision will go in the mail tomorrow to Allison. Let me know if you have any questions. It's been good working with you - thanks for all your patience as we worked through the issues. Keep us posted as the project moves forward, particularly when the landscaping plans come in. Take care. Carol Carol Lumb Internet: katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov <Ex... 01/25/2007 6:07 pm Notice of Decision January 24, 2007 • Cij' ofTukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development FM: Carol Lumb, S lanner MEMORANDUM 0 RE L06 -040, WSDOT I =405 Nickel Fund Project Special Permission, Director, Request to Fill Type 3 Wetlands; Alter a Type 2 Wetland and Approve Off -Site Mitigation The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will be constructing improvements along I -405 between I -5 and the Cedar River in Renton. The improvements include a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes and construction of a stormwater drainage system. The highway widening involves cutting into banks and filling depressions within the highway prism. WSDOT has mapped wetlands along the improvement corridor, three of which will be permanently impacted by the road improvements. The wetlands to be impacted were not inventoried as part of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance as they are located in the interstate right -of -way, however they would be rated Type 3 wetlands and thus are regulated under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The road widening also will require the construction of a new storm water pond near the intersection of I -5 and I -405, which will discharge to Gilliam Creek, impacting the creek and its buffers. There will also be several retaining walls constructed that fall within the buffer area of Gilliam Creek. Work in the shoreline for this project has been addressed under land use file L06 -037, shoreline substantial development permit. SEPA The Washington State Department of Transportation, the lead agency for environmental review, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on October 2, 2006. (See Exhibit A.) CL Page 1 of 12 Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \l 06 -040 Special Permission Director.do. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 =3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 L06 -040, Special Permission Director 1 -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Background • The applicant has provided a Wetland Sensitive Area Study, JARPA maps identifying affected wetlands, Sensitive Areas Memo, an Updated Wetland Mitigation Memo, and Stormwater Pond Map. These are attached as Exhibits B -F. The wetlands are identified by WSDOT with a number based on its milepost location within the study area. The wetland also includes an identifier of "L" or "R "; the "L" indicates the wetland is located on the left (north) side of I -405 while "R" indicates the wetland is located on the right or south side of I -405. The JARPA drawings are attached which illustrate the location of each wetland. The wetlands proposed for alteration are the following: Wetland 0.4L, which is 0.11 acres (4792 sq. ft.) in size, of which 0.08 acres (3485 sq. ft.) will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.4L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 3 of the JARPA drawings. Permanent impacts to buffers equals 0.21 acres; temporary impacts to buffers equals 0.05 acres. Wetland 0.5L, which is 0.05 acres (2178 sq. ft.) in size, all of which will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.5L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 3 of the JARPA drawings. Wetland 0.6L, which is 0.17 acres (7,405 sq. ft.) in size, of which 0.01 acres (436 sq. ft.) will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.6L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 4 of the JARPA drawings. Permanent impacts to buffers equals 0.51 acres; temporary impacts to buffers equals 0.07 acres. The original proposal included alterations to Wetland 0.9L, the Nelson side channel, to allow the discharge of storm water from a new storm water pond that was to be constructed adjacent to the wetland. WSDOT has since determined it does not require a storm water pond to collect storm water from this portion of the I -405 corridor. Watercourses: Watercourses identified in the vicinity of the project are Gilliam Creek and Cottage Creek. No impacts to Cottage Creek are anticipated. There will be impacts to Gilliam Creek buffers - 10,441 sq. ft. of permanent impacts and 3,974 sq. ft. of temporary impacts. CL Page 2 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Decision Criteria • This Special Permission Director application is comprised of five elements: I. Request to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands including showing that the alterations are the minimum necessary for project feasibility; II. New surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures; III. Request to permanently alter wetland buffers; IV. Request to permanently alter watercourse buffers and V. Request to locate the mitigation for permanent wetland impacts off -site at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank in Renton. The decision criteria for each of these requested actions are discussed below. I. Request to Fill or Alter Type 3 Wetlands TMC 18.45.090 A. states that any use or development in a wetland is subject to review and approval by the Director. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. TMC 18.45.090 B. states that alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility. The Background Section identifies the wetlands that will be impacted and the amount of fill required for the road improvements. WSDOT considered using retaining walls or fill as the two options to provide additional road area for the widening. According to the Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum provided by WSDOT, the impacts to the wetlands, either temporary or permanent, are unavoidable due to roadway design standards. The memo states: "(T)he roadway is on a curve through this area. Decision standards require....additional width beyond the outside shoulder for horizontal sight distance. If a wall was used, it would... sit in the wetlands, impacting them as much or more than the fill slope that is proposed." Requests for alterations must meet the criteria that follow below. The criteria are in italics with the response following. a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality; The wetlands to be altered or filled are located along the north side of I -405 within the right -of -way and adjacent to the roadway. Run -off from the western portion of the project closest to I -5 will be collected in a new storm water pond before the water is discharged to Gilliam Creek. For the eastern portion of the CL Page 3 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 0 project area, WSDOT determined that a storm water pond is not warranted at this time given the small amount of new impervious surface that is being created. At both the western and eastern ends of the project area, ecology embankments will be used to capture runoff at the edge of the pavement and provide water quality treatment. Ecology embankments consist of a trench that is dug along side the highway shoulder, laid with perforated pipe and backfilled with a filtration media. Water from the road flows into the ditch, is filtered by the media and then carried off site by the pipe. At the western end of the project area near I -5, the water will then move to the new storm water pond for detention before it is discharged to Gilliam Creek. At the eastern end of the project area, the ecology embankment will be used to treat the water, which then will filter into the ground. The WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual, which has been developed for the design of stormwater management facilities. The Manual meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; The wetlands to be altered are located in the highway right -of -way and therefore provide very little habitat. c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and /or storm water detention capabilities; The Technical Information Report for stormwater notes that two detention ponds totaling 2.08 acres will be used for stormwater flow control measures for the 1.5 acre increase in new pavement. Since the TIR was prepared, WSDOT has determined the storm water pond adjacent to the Nelson side channel is not needed, so only one storm water pond will be constructed. d The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; Temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices will be used during construction to prevent erosion. A detention pond will be used to collect stormwater run -off at the western end of the project and meter out water discharge to Gilliam Creek. e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and The road widening construction that will impact wetlands takes place in Washington State Department of Transportation right -of -way. CL Page 4 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 • • f The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas. The wetlands that will be impacted by the road work are not associated with Gilliam Creek, the only other sensitive area that falls within the project area. Impacts to the Green River were addressed through the Shoreline Substantial Development permit, L06 -037. The mitigation plan prepared by WSDOT is the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. While the City did not participate in the review and approval of this document, it has been approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Highway Administration, the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Transportation. II. New surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures. TMC 18.45.070 B. permits the discharge of new surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures if the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended and does not adversely affect water level fluctuations in the watercourse flow conditions relative to the existing rate. The project proposes to construct a new stormwater pond just east of the intersection of I -5 and I- 405, which will discharge to Gilliam Creek, a Type 2 stream under the City's sensitive areas ordinance (SAO). The Department of Transportation uses the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, which is similar to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, to design its stormwater facilities. This Manual has been reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Highway Runoff Manual meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. III. Request to Reduce and Permanently Alter Wetland Buffers The Sensitive Areas Ordinance permits the reduction of wetland and watercourse buffers by up to 50 percent, if an enhancement plan is provided and approved by the Director. Essential streets, roads and right -of -way such as I -405 are uses permitted by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance subject to administrative review. For this road widening CL Page 5 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 1 ao project, WSDOT is working within a limited right -of -way and therefore the options for avoiding impacts to the sensitive areas and their buffers is constrained. Since no inner median exists within the majority of the I -405 corridor, all widening must occur to the outside of the existing roadway shoulders. As a result, some buffers will be reduced beyond the 50 %. The impacts to the wetland buffers will be caused by road widening adjacent to the wetland buffers that will encroach into the buffers. Retaining walls will not be used along the wetlands due to safety concerns. In some cases, construction of a retaining wall would encroach further into the wetland than the use of fill, which is what is proposed for wetlands 0.4L, 0.5L, and 0.6L. TMC 18.45.080 G.2. provides criteria for the approval of a buffer reduction: Buffer reduction with enhancement may be allowed provided: a. Additional protection to wetlands will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; and b. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded. The existing condition of the buffers is degraded and consists mostly of reed canarygrass, common cattail, soft rush, and Himalayan blackberry. Because the wetlands are in the shoulder right of way it is frequently mowed to preserve sight distance for vehicles traveling south on I -405. WSDOT originally proposed transferring the mitigation for permanent impacts to wetland buffers to the Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank. After further discussions with the City, WSDOT will provide wetland buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to wetland buffers in the area identified on Exhibit G. Permanent impacts to wetland buffers total 31,363 sq. ft.; given the limited amount of area available for enhancement adjacent to the wetland, enhancement will occur at a 1:1 ratio. The wetland buffer will be planted with native wetland species, such as Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, Snowberry, Redtwig Dogwood, Red - flowering currant, Scouler's willow and Cascara. Native wetland buffer plant species will be planted in areas of sparse vegetation or limited ground cover. The placement and spacing of the plants will vary to minimize mortality through competition with existing native species. Native plants will be planted on 4- to 6 -foot centers where possible. WSDOT's stated goal is to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. As this is a design -build project, a planting plan will be prepared by the contractor selected through the competitive bid process at a later date and submitted to the City for review. CL Page 6of12 Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director 1 -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 IV. Request to Reduce and Permanently Alter Watercourse Buffers As noted above, the SAO provides a mechanism for reducing watercourse buffers. The impacts to the watercourse buffers will be caused by several retaining walls to be constructed within the buffers for Gilliam Creek, starting at the I -405 entrance from Tukwila Parkway and proceeding eastward along the south side of the freeway. TMC 18.45.100 F provides that the Director may approve buffer reduction if it does not result in direct, indirect or long -term adverse impacts to the watercourse and that an enhancement plan is provided to improve the buffer function and value. The I -405 project will permanently impact 10,441 square feet of buffer for Gilliam Creek through the construction of the retaining walls but will not impact the stream itself. The SAO does not establish a mitigation ratio for impacts to watercourse buffers. The project will provide a total of 10,441 square feet of under -story stream buffer enhancement, as identified on Exhibit G and will be planted with native conifers such as Sitka spruce, hemlock or cedar trees. This is a mitigation ratio of 1:1. A total of approximately 27 trees will be planted at approximately 20 feet on center. Since this is a design/build project, a planting plan will be prepared by the contractor selected through the competitive bid process and submitted for review to the City at a later date. V. Request for Off -Site Mitigation WSDOT has received approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within this service area at a wetland mitigation bank located to the east of Tukwila in the City of Renton. The objectives of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are to re- establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres of wetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. Approval of off site mitigation is subject to the following criteria from TMC 18.45.090 E. The criteria are identified in italics below, with a response following. 1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that: (a) On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or (b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or CL Pagc 7 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director 1 -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 • 0 (c) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or (d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly just location of mitigation at another site. Response: On -site wetland mitigation is not practical for the project as the wetlands are located in I -405 right -of -way. The limited amount of area remaining in the right -of -way limits the ability to create, restore or enhance remaining wetland area. As noted in III. Above, WSDOT will provide buffer enhancement for the remaining impacted wetland buffers. 2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. Response: the mitigation is proposed to take place in the Green/Duwamish River watershed, which is the same watershed in which the impacts are occurring. 3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred. However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that: (a) Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non - development and long -term viability of the mitigation site; and (b) Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has occurred. Response: As noted above, WSDOT has received approval from the Department of Ecology and the COE to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within the service area at a wetland mitigation bank located in the City of Renton. The objectives of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are to re- establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres of wetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. Wetland rehabilitation is a type of wetland restoration, and is defined by the COE and Ecology. Wetland rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. 4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (a) Upland sites that were formerly wetlands; CL Page 8 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 • 0 (b) Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation; (c) Other disturbed upland; (d) Existing degraded wetland Response: The Springbrook Mitigation Bank as a total project will reconnect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re- establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrology, floodplain, habitat and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. As such, it is a mix of upland that was formerly wetland, idled upland, disturbed upland and existing degraded wetland. The Wetland Sensitive Area Study notes that by consolidating the mitigation into one large site, the larger site will contribute aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high - quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. One issue with the use of the Mitigation Bank is that the Bank credits are based on net ecological benefit. The value of one credit was developed to be equal in value to one acre of Category II wetland (as classified by the Department of Ecology's Wetland Classification System). The credits compensate at a 1:1 ratio for adverse impacts to a Category II wetland (a Type 1 wetland under Tukwila's rating system). For example, three acres of impacted Category II wetlands would require 3 credits would be deducted from the Bank. For Category IV wetlands (Type 3 wetlands in Tukwila) 0.70 credit is required per impact acre. While the mitigation credits under the Springbrook Mitigation Bank instrument vary based on the category of wetland affected by construction, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) applies the same mitigation ratio, regardless of wetland type: Compensation of 1.5:1 is required for wetland creation or restoration and 3:1 compensation is required for wetland enhancement. Initially, WSDOT proposed to compensate for wetland impacts at less than the mitigation ratios required by the City's SAO for wetland creation or restoration. After discussions with the City, WSDOT will provide 1.5:1 mitigation for the Type 3 wetlands permanently impacted by the road construction. The Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank will be debited 0.148 credits to mitigate for the wetland impacts in Tukwila. The 0.148 CL Page 9 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director 1 -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 CONCLUSIONS • • credits equates to a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 multiplied by the 0.70 credit per affected acre multiplied by the affected acreage in Tukwila, 0.14 acres. 1. The WSDOT is proposing improvements to I -405 using a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes. 2. WSDOT, acting as the lead agency, issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on October 2, 2006. 3. WSDOT is requesting Special Permission to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands; construct a new surface water discharge to a sensitive area (Gilliam Creek); reduce and alter both wetland and watercourse buffers and locate the majority of the mitigation for wetland impacts outside the City of Tukwila. 4. Essential streets, roads and rights -of -way such as Interstate 405 are a permitted use subject to administrative review under TMC 18.45.070 B.7. 5. The wetland alterations will not adversely affect water quality; WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual for stormwater management design which meets the Ecology standards established for stormwater. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife or their habitat — ecology embankments will be used to filter the water before it reaches the stormwater pond that will discharge to Gilliam Creek, improving the water quality and quantity that reaches the stream. Currently there is no treatment of highway runoff in this area. 6. Due to the limited right -of -way available for the road widening, in some areas the wetland buffer will be less than 50% of the depth required. The reduced buffer area will be planted with native species and invasive species will be removed. 7. The project will permanently impact 10,441 sq. ft. of watercourse buffer. WSDOT will provide 10,441 sq. ft. of watercourse buffer enhancement with under -story plantings in the creek corridor between S. 61 Street and the entrance to northbound I -405 on Tukwila Parkway. New ecology embankments will be constructed to filter stormwater and one new stormwater pond will be constructed to hold stormwater before discharging to Gilliam Creek, which will improve water quality. Best Management Practices will be used during construction to control erosion and sedimentation. 8. TMC 18.45.040 B.3. permits the discharge of new surface water to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities if the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201. This project proposes to discharge storm water from the new storm water pond to Gilliam Creek, a Type 2 stream under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual, which meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project will meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. CL Page 10 of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director 1 -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 • o 9. The area for on -site wetland mitigation for permanent wetland impacts is limited due to the limited amount of area that will remain in the right -of -way once the road improvements are constructed. 10. Mitigation for permanent wetland impacts will be located at the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT has received approval from the Department of Ecology and the COE to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within the service area at a wetland mitigation bank located in the City of Renton. WSDOT will meet the required 1.5:1 wetland mitigation ratio required by Tukwila's SAO by deducting 0.148 credits from the Mitigation Bank. 11. The Bank, due to its larger size, will contribute aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high - quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. The off -site mitigation is located in the same basin as the wetlands, the Green River. 12. The Springbrook Mitigation Bank as a total project will reconnect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re- establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrology, floodplain, habitat and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. As such, it is a mix of upland that was formerly wetland, idled upland, disturbed upland and existing degraded wetland. 13. The project will provide 31,363 sq. ft. of wetland buffer enhancement on the north side of I -405 along the impacted wetland buffers. The buffers will be planted with native species to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Special Permission permit with the following conditions: 1. Provide the name of the Environmental Compliance Manager and a copy of the Environmental Compliance Plan prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide a copy of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures prior to the start of construction. 3. Provide a copy of the landscaping plan for the proposed under -story plantings along Gilliam Creek and the wetland buffer plantings prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a copy of the Best Management Practices required of the contractor prior to start of construction. CL Page I I of 12 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: • o SEPA Determination of Nonsignficance Wetland Sensitive Area Study JARPA Drawings Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum Sensitive Area Memorandum Stormwater Pond Drawing January 18, 2007 WSDOT Response to City Comments CL Page 12 of 12 Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 01/24/2007 10:55:00 AM • 0 RECEIVED NOV 15 2006 OEM APM�E T Attachment 5 SEPA DNS EXHIBIT A C911 cr RrcJ us Rapid Transit PiraiKts`: 600 108' DE E MINATION .OF..l4914SIPNIFICANCE:(DNS) i -40S Renfon'Nickel :#improvement Project, t 5, to SR, 169 >L� • escriphon ofproposalr WSDOT intends to improve 1 tterstate 405 (t 40 EE Interstate S, (1 =5) to SR 169.. These improvernients are=a. part of he'i - Corridor {; Program The Proposed ,Action includes the following improvements to support construction and operation of the facility;. ar ra`gra . onstaucting crne new northbound general-purpose lane. 'and • --one : new southbound general- purpose lame or 1-405 .from 1-5 to SR 167 aid from'Sli 167 to . SR T9, Constructing one new southbound general-purpose lane on SR' 4.67 ffro. 4 � P m Ft `+ e the :�J �� t3tX C?ff IPYt1pr •.," - ..- � - .. Extending the SR -167 southbound .HHHO lane north t bein if 1 -405,. �'�', �. Be mot; Bridge Replacing lacing fate Be.,,.:on Road � on a new a .igrimeiit. that will .include bike and , iestr'; facilities; ?.+',,....`st�.al�i ir,Ia.x i FMS" at1d :.': : '. ....:. Re:plac:in g t. F 1-4V5 bridges.; Oyer ' Springbrook. Side Channel : : :a.nd "rte -..... 9 with, 7.- yt l.�,., 4 '. y . �. .. th .. .. Avenue f .:.:a, .CiR:..ytr,5e�i.. la. ()..!'I a�xl+�, _'f. >T�. 3boLFJ"tCt.bCit.k;eis' :.:,..:... Oth features of tli :project include; Replacing t ing' the bridge . rails :on. the 1 bridges: over Northern/Santa. :i.N,.;iF .and Union Pacific ( f") rai1roaki tracks cL#°:t .:over . 51Z imp.roving so T.',.rkt'viiter tt i tt-tii-.'I #4',, (;i.eterttiort 1 i rta.c.0 'I # rai'tge;: yy g. � . • . sin d '.`.i .t'A: —• F;t1.n..3ples and •ad.L i::3 a'i;'L ,. .. n :. .. .... .. c.i ? ,, zt rai'? ce• and z rot measures . • y 77 . Tian �:.e.t Nickel r' r i.,: rOvet"F3t'rit rts p r ide t• . . • F:1 ik;i 3:Fs ii? i mini 'ni:Je :e, Sects - t tithe f J t• >'° ,� _ �..� Tai. -, "� t �t • A enue, NE, :.Suitte r...:.: Belie s ►: >' 98004 Mein 425-456-8500 ':.:.. Fax 42.5- 4.56 -8600 ` :;. ct =noise N_ iwa -,►o • Removing the existing box culvert at Springbrook Creek and improving the streambed; and • Mitigating for fill in lower - quality wetlands by using credits from Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank, a higher- quality wetland complex. Location of proposal, including street address, if any: The Renton Nickel Improvement Project extends for approximately 3.6 miles along I-405 from I -5 to SR 169 and along SR 167 from I-405 to the SW 41st Street ramp off - connection. Proponent/Lead Agency: Washington State Department of Transportation Determination: 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 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. Please note that our checklist document is titled 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project, 1 -5 to SR 169, Environmental Assessment and it was completed in October 2006. The document is available to view during normal business hours at: I-405 Project Office, 600 — 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405, Bellevue; Bellevue Regional Library; Bellevue Community College; Foster Library; Highlands Public Library; Renton Public Library; Skyway Library; Tukwila Regional Library; and the University of Washington Library (Suzzalo and Bothell). The document is also available electronically at www.wsdot. wa.gov/projects/i405/corridor/library/rentea O There is no comment period for this DNS. 0 This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by October 16, 2006. • ' • 0 ATTACHMENT 6 Wetland Sensitive Area Study RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT B I -405, 1 -5 to SR- 169 — Renton Nickel Improvement Project City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Information in this report was directly derived from the 1 -405, 1 -5 to SR -169 — Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report dated May 2006. Washington State Department of Transportation May 2006 Table of Contents Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Glossary v Summary S -1 1.0 Introduction 1 -1 1.1 Purpose and Goals 1 -1 1.2 Project Description 1 -1 2.0 Methods 2 - 1 2.1 Wetland Identification, Delineation, and Classification 2 -1 2.2 Wetland Functional Assessment 2 -1 2.3 Agency Coordination and Field Review of Information 2 -2 3.0 Affected Environment 3 -1 3.1 Project Area Setting 3 -1 3.2 Wetland Determination 3 -1 3.2.1 Wetland Descriptions 3 -2 3.2.2 Wetland Rating and Classification Summary 3 -8 3.2.3 Wetland Functions and Values Summary 3 -8 4.0 impacts 4 -1 4.1 Permanent Impacts 4 -1 4.2 Temporary Impacts 4-1 4.3 Functions and Values 4 -1 5.0 Recommendations 5 -1 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 5-1 5.2 Mitigation Sequence 5 -1 6.0 Preliminary Compensatory Mitigation 6 -1 7.0 References 7 -1 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • • May 2006 Table 2 -1 City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations 2 -3 Table 3 -1 Summary of Wetlands Located within the City of Tukwila 3 -2 Table 3 -2 Wetland Ratings, City of Tukwila 3 -8 Table 3-3 Wetland Functions and Values 3 -9 Table 4 -1 Filled or Disturbed Wetlands, City of Tukwila 4 -2 Table 4 -2 Summary of City of Tukwila Impacted Wetland Area 4 -2 Table 5 -1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 5 -1 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study List of Tables List of Appendices Appendix A: Common and Taxonomic Names of Plants Observed in the Study Area Appendix B: Wetland Data Sheets Compact Disc (CD) Wetland Delineation Forms Functional Assessment Forms Wetland Rating Forms May 2006 11 .. ;Ft - R I .fit • � et.'' � .- '� °�Ff,'Ai.�,`.3•', '' . sv "z'� :<'LT, - BMP CEQ Corps Ecology FAC FACU FACW FEIS GMA HOV 1-405 1 -5 MBE MP NI NL NMFS NRCS NWI OBL Project PAB PEM PFO POW PSS ROW SMA TMC UPL USFWS Acronyms and Abbreviations • City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • best management practice Council on Environmental Quality United States Army Corps of Engineers Washington Department of Ecology facultative facultative upland facultative wetland Final Environmental Impact Statement Growth Management Act high occupancy vehicle Interstate 405 Interstate 5 mitigation banking instrument milepost no indicator status not listed National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service National Wetlands Inventory obligate 1-405, 1 -5 to SR- 169 — Renton Nickel Improvement Project palustrine aquatic bed palustrine emergent palustrine forested palustrine open water palustrine scrub -shrub right of way Shoreline Management Act Tukwila Municipal Code upland United States Fish and Wildlife Service May 2006 lli :.r,a �t ^ s�z sfi a o.�, Cy "e+ �?: •.;� ^.a >; ;; if .�. . �, � ... �. iM WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR WIS WSDOT City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Washington Department of Natural Resources wetland indicator status Washington State Department of Transportation May 2006 iv Glossary • onrn City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study A designated area along the buffer of a stream or wetland that is regulated to control the negative effects of adjacent development from intruding into the aquatic resource. emergent A plant that grows rooted in shallow water, the bulk of which emerges from the water and stands vertically. emergent wetland In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979), a wetland characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. enhancement An improvement in the functions and values of an existing wetland typically through the planting of native plant species. fill material Any material placed in an area to increase surface elevation. forested wetland In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979), a wetland characterized by woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall or taller. groundwater That portion of the water below the ground surface that is under greater than atmospheric pressure. herbaceous Having the characteristics of an herb; a plant with no persistent woody stem above the ground. hydric soil A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. hydrology The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water. in -kind compensation Compensation for lost wetland habitat with a replacement wetland of the same habitat type. mitigation Defined in WAC 197 -11 -766 as: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and /or (6) monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. May 2006 v Or out -of -kind compensation palustrine project area restoration scrub -shrub soil matrix study area wetland 0 saturated soil conditions City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study ,Crag 1 '1.- fCti..t .e'.' l:f',ai 17 M eanin g L , 1. ..ff f rr Y Compensation for lost wetland habitat with a replacement wetland of a different habitat type. In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979), freshwater areas (having less than 0.5 parts per thousand ocean- derived salts) dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, mosses, or lichens. They can be non -tidal or tidal. Palustrine also includes wetlands lacking this vegetation but having the following characteristics: (1) area Tess than 20 acres; (2) no active wave - formed or bedrock shoreline; and (3) water depth in the deepest part is Tess than 6.6 feet at low water. The entire area within the 1-405, 1 -5 to SR- 169 — Renton Nickel Improvement Project. To improve a disturbed or altered wetland by returning wetland parameters that may be missing. The restoration may return a wetland habitat to its original state. A condition in which all easily drained voids (pores between soil particles) in the root zone are temporarily or permanently filled with water to the soil surface at pressures greater than atmospheric. In the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979), areas dominated by woody vegetation Tess than 20 feet tall. The species include tree shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are stunted because of environmental conditions. The portion of a given soil having the dominant color. In most cases, the matrix will be the portion of the soil having more than 50 percent of the same color. Areas that were specifically evaluated for the presence of wetlands as defined by the Scope of Work for this project. This area is similar to the project area, but only includes areas within the 1 -405 right of way and stormwater facilities footprints. Wetlands are formally defined by the Corps (Federal Register 1982), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register 1988), the Washington State SMA of 1971 (Ecology 1991), and the GMA (Ecology 1992) as: ... those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (Federal Register 1982, 1986). May 2006 vi 1 • 7 '7°3 a „ :.. .T'z hir•. t.^ 7�� +. ,i 2 r �� ���� s,�,✓.St' m.°` d . ( s� it.�`,.�' i`y?:'fi'.LA;'t wetland, continued The SMA and the GMA definitions add: Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass - lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificially- created wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. wetland boundary The point on the ground at which a shift from wetlands to non - wetlands or aquatic habitat occurs. These boundaries usually follow topographic contours. wetland hydrology The total of all wetness characteristics in areas that are inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation. wetland indicator status Categories of plant species based upon the estimated (WIS) probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in a wetland or non - wetland. Wetland indicator status categories include the following: Obligate (OBL): species that almost always occur wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability is greater than 99 percent). City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Facultative (FAC): species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands (estimated probability is 34 to 66 percent) or non - wetlands. Facultative upland (FACU): species that usually occur in non - wetlands (estimated probability is 67 to 99 percent), but are occasionally found in wetlands. Upland (UPL): species that almost always occur in non - wetlands under normal conditions (estimated probability is greater than 99 percent). Not listed (NL): species that are not listed and are presumed to be upland species. Facultative wetland (FACW): species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability is 67 to 99 percent), but are occasionally found in non - wetlands. May 2006 vi! —. i t. S'S" F a w+'v .. S . an t ; r+'r f,^ :� r ;S :. i or �` j < . , f rw Meaning Y y < '° °t 1i.,y .4. � .xt � ....�uYc.s K�... :64'.. -5 wetland indicator status No indicator status (NI): species that have not yet (WIS), continued been evaluated. A ( +) or ( -) following the WIS of a given species signifies a greater or lesser likelihood of being found in wetland conditions. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 viii Summary 0 0 The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is planning construction to improve Interstate 405 (1 -405) between Interstate 5 (1 -5) in the City of Tukwila and the Cedar River in the City of Renton in King County, Washington. WSDOT project activities near the shoreline of the Green River in the City of Tukwila, require a Wetland Sensitive Area Study as part of the City of Tukwila's Shoreline Permit process. City of Tukwila wetlands that occur within the 1-405, 1 -5 to SR -169— Renton Nickel Improvement Project (Project) are summarized in this document. Nine wetlands were delineated in the City of Tukwila by WSDOT. Overall, wetlands in the affected environment are generally degraded with a history of disturbance due to road or interchange construction and past development. The wetlands are grouped into three wetland types: emergent, scrub - shrub, and forested. Emergent wetlands are primarily dominated by non - native vegetation such as reed canarygrass, bentgrass, Himalayan blackberry, and soft rush. The majority of wetlands in the affected environment are emergent. Scrub -shrub and forested wetlands are characterized by deciduous species such as red alder, willow, and black cottonwood. Five wetlands in the City of Tukwila are Category IV wetlands according to the Washington Department of Ecology Wetlands Rating System. Four Category III wetlands also . occur within the study area. There are no Category I or 11 wetlands in the City of Tukwila study area. Construction would result in the loss (filling) or temporarily disturbance of an estimated 0.18 acres of wetland. Of this total, approximately 0.15 acres would be permanently filled and 0.03 acres would be temporarily disturbed during construction and subsequently restored. Temporary construction impacts may include sediment transport and erosion from disturbed soils on site due to construction activities. During the preliminary design process, WSDOT made several adjustments to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and their buffers. The most common avoidance and minimization measures included moving stormwater facilities and requiring retaining walls to reduce the extent of fill necessary to construct the road improvements. WSDOT proposes several measures to compensate for impacted wetland functions and values using a combination of wetland creation and enhancement of existing degraded wetlands at an off -site location. WSDOT will also implement drainage system improvements to provide stormwater treatment and detention within each basin. During project -level design, WSDOT will identify specific best management practices (BMPs) and other measures to be incorporated into construction specifications developed during the final design process. BMPs will be implemented during construction and operation of the Project to minimize sedimentation and /or contamination of wetlands. Prior to final development of project - specific BMPs, WSDOT will meet with federal, state, and local agencies to identify mitigation priorities and options for avoiding or minimizing wetland losses, and to compensate for any losses. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations pertaining to mitigation, BMP sequencing includes: 1. Avoidance measures that eliminate the onset of impacts. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 S -1 14, r • 0 2. Minimization measures proposed to decrease the magnitude or severity of the impact. 3. Rectification measures that are part of the Project and repair or restore resources. 4. Reduction or elimination measures that soften the impacts. 5. Compensation measures designed to offset unavoidable adverse impacts. 6. Monitoring measures that become part of the project to ensure that resources are not further degraded by the Project. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 S -2 1.0 Introduction City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • 1 1.1 Purpose and Goals This Wetlands Sensitive Area Study has been prepared to meet requirements for the City of Tukwila Shoreline Permit. Project biologists completed wetland investigations and prepared this report. The objectives of the wetland study include: • Determine the location and condition of wetlands within the City of Tukwila. • Evaluate project- related impacts. • Outline appropriate measures for project planning and to help the project team meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. 1.2 Project Description The Project is a WSDOT project that will result in improvements to the 1-405 corridor in and around the City of Tukwila, Washington. The project area begins just east of the 1- 5/1 -405 interchange and extends east past the border between Tukwila and Renton. Improvements will also be made to local roads, freeway structures, and the stormwater drainage system associated with the Project. The Project also includes new stormwater management facilities and a substantial upgrade of existing drainage structures and systems. May 2008 1 -1 0 2.0 Methods 0 This section describes the methodology used for preparing this Wetlands Sensitive Area Study, including the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are consistent with current federal, WSDOT, and other state agency requirements. 2.1 Wetland Identification, Delineation, and Classification Wetlands were delineated using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), a manual consistent with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands were then classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Westem Washington, Revised developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology; Hruby 2004). Wetlands were also rated according to the local jurisdiction's sensitive or critical areas ordinance (Table 2 -1). All wetlands located in the WSDOT right -of -way (ROW) in the study area were delineated and classified. In general, wetland delineation consisted of three main tasks: (1) assessing vegetation, soil, and hydrologic characteristics to identify areas meeting the wetland determination criteria; (2) evaluating constructed drainage features to determine if they would be regulated as wetlands; and (3) marking wetland boundaries. Common plant names are used throughout this report. A list of corresponding taxonomic names is provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Wetland Functional Assessment Wetlands perform a variety of biological, physical (hydrologic), and chemical (water quality) functions. For this Project, wetlar,,' - , inctions were ,..«luated using the WSDOT Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects manual (Null et al. 2000) and were assessed based on best professional judgment. The manual is a qualitative tool designed for linear projects to enable the rapid documentation and characterization of the functions provided by a given wetland. The methodology does I. quantitative values to a particular function, but identifies functional strengths ana weaknesses to help guide management decisions and aid in mitigation choices. Wetland functions are divided into the following 14 categories: • Flood flow alteration • Sediment removal • Nutrient and toxicant removal • Erosion control and shoreline stabilization • Production of organic matter and its export • General habitat suitability • Habitat for aquatic invertebrates City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 2 -1 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • • • Habitat for amphibians • Habitat for wetland- associated mammals • Habitat for wetland - associated birds • General fish habitat • Native plant richness • Educational or scientific value • Uniqueness and heritage 2.3 Agency Coordination and Field Review of Information The following data sources were reviewed for information on vegetation pattems, topography, drainage, and potential or known wetlands or wildlife habitats in the Project vicinity: • National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps (USFWS 1987 and 1988) • U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 Topographic Maps • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils surveys and county hydric soils lists (NRCS 1995 and Snyder et al. 1973) • King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (King County 1990) • City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map (City of Tukwila 2004) . • Correspondence with Services: USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Wetlands and associated buffers are regulated by the local jurisdiction. For the Project, the local jurisdictions include the City of Tukwila. Project biologists rated the wetlands based on the pertinent city critical areas regulations, which then determined wetland buffer widths and mitigation ratios. Wetland buffers are vegetated upland areas immediately adjacent to wetlands that protect the many functions and values of wetlands. Scientific literature indicates that buffer widths are directly related to the degree of protection for a particular function. The following sections extract wetland information contained in the critical areas ordinances of Tukwila. The full text of critical areas regulations should be consulted during application. City of Tukwila As required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City of Tukwila updated the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.45 Environmentally Sensitive Areas in accordance with best available science in December 2004. TMC 18.45 classifies wetlands into three types as described below. Type 1 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Contain species listed by the federal govemment or state as endangered or threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for listed species May 2006 2 -2 , Wetland Classiflcatlort ' Buffer Requirement: ' Type 1 100 feet Type 2 80 feet Type 3 50 feet City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study 0 • Have 40 to 60 percent permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation • Are equal to or greater than 5 acres in size and have three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water • Documented as regionally significant waterfowl or shorebird areas by WDFW Type 2 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Are equal to or greater than 1 acre in size • Have three or more wetland classes and are Tess than 5 acres • Contain nesting sites for priority species as listed by the WDFW • Hydrologically connected (non - isolated) to a Type 1 or Type 2 watercourse Type 3 wetlands are those wetlands not meeting the definition of Type 1 or 2 wetlands that are greater than 1,000 square feet (sf) and less than 1 acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes. According to the TMC 18.45.080, buffers from the wetland edge are required (see Table 2 -1). The TMC also requires that commercial and industrial buildings shall be set back 15 feet from the buffer's edge, and all other development be set back 10 feet (TMC 18.45.080 [F]). Impacts to wetlands are to be mitigated according to the provisions under TMC 18.45.090: Wetland Uses, Alterations, and Mitigation. Section D2 states that "in order to achieve the City's goal of no net Toss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or creation plan." Mitigation shall be implemented through the creation of wetlands (from non - wetland areas) or through the restoration of degraded wetlands. Table 2 -1 provides a summary of the City of Tukwila's wetland buffer requirements. Table 2 -1 City of Tukwila Wetland Regulations May 2006 2 -3 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study 3.0 Mfectedl Environment 0 0 The following sections describe existing environmental information for the project vicinity and the findings of the wetland determinations made in the field. Wetland ratings established by state and local jurisdictions, wetland classifications, wetland functions and values, and wetland proximity to streams are also described below. The NWI (USFWS 1987 and 1988) and King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (King County 1990) contain few mapped wetlands in the study area. Palustrine forested (PFO) and palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) wetlands identified in these documents are associated with the Green River basin. These resources also contain maps of a few smaller palustrine emergent (PEM) and /or PSS wetlands. The City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map (City of Tukwila 2004) shows locations of wetlands and streams in the city. The map identifies two wetlands associated with Gilliam Creek that are not given specific names. The wetlands are located south of the 1 -5 northbound to 1-405 northbound ramp, and west of 61st Avenue South. The wetlands were identified and delineated by project biologists. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, now called the NRCS, has mapped the majority of the project area as Urban land soils. Two soil units (Puget silty clay loam and Tukwila Muck) occur in the project vicinity and are classified as hydric soils. 3.1 Project Area Setting The Project area is located within the City of Tukwila. The majority of the Project area where road improvements will occur is WSDOT ROW, with small portions in city, county, or private ownership. The topography in the Project vicinity is typical of lowland areas south of Lake Washington. The entire Project lies within the western hemlock vegetation zone of westem Washington (Franklin and Dymess 1988). Vegetation is dominated by needle - leaved, evergreen tree species such as Douglas -fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar. Other dominant tree species include red alder and big -leaf maple, which occur in scattered patches of deciduous forest habitats in the vicinity of the Project. Uplands in the Project vicinity consist of areas adjacent to the existing roadway, residential properties, and disturbed areas. Vegetation in the ROW upland areas includes species typically associated with disturbance and past land - clearing activities. Himalayan blackberry, bentgrass, fescue, quackgrass, and other weeds have colonized these areas. Other uplands are landscaped residential areas or undisturbed mixed deciduous forest dominated by big -leaf maple, black cottonwood, Douglas -fir, and red alder. Dominant native understory shrubs include snowberry, Indian -plum, and beaked hazelnut. Upland soils in the study area have been intensively disturbed by roadway construction and maintenance, and ditching. 3.2 Wetland Determination Project biologists delineated nine wetlands totaling approximately 3.75 acres within the City of Tukwila. Table 3 -1 presents a summary of these wetlands. The wetland areas shown represent the total area of wetland delineated. May 2006 3-1 Wetland Identifi .. , ; r ;r z _ . Drainage Bashi , . Are»t t ( acres) :. Cowardln {'' Classifications: Statbs • Riparian , ` Association 0.15R Green River 0.52 PEM N Y 0.1R Green River 0.05 PEM 0 N 0.25M Green River 0.07 PEM D N 0.3R Green River 1.29 PFO N Y 0.4L Green River 0.11 PEM D N 0.5L Green River 0.05 PEM D N 0.6L Green River 0.17 PSS D N 0.94L Green River 0.48 PSS 0 Y 0.9R Green River 1.01 PAB N N Table 3 -1 Summary of Wetlands Located within the City of Tukwila PAB - Palustrine Aquatic Bed; PEM - Palustrine Emergent; PFO - Palustrine Forested; PSS - Palustrine Scrub -Shrub. These terms are defined in the glossary of this document. 2 Status describes the nature of each wetland as follows: D - ditch, N - natural wetland with stormwater detention capabilities, O - other wetland 3.2.1 Wetland Descriptions The following sections describe the wetlands of the Green River drainage basin inside the City of Tukwila. Wetlands are described in location sequence from south to north. Each wetland identified in the field was assigned a number based on its milepost (MP) location within the study area, starting with MP 0.0 at the west end of the study area and extending east to the City of Tukwila/Renton border. The wetland number also includes an "L" if the wetland is located on the left (north) side of 1-405 and an "R" if it is located on the right (south) side of 1-405. For example, a wetland found at the midpoint between MP 0.5 and MP 1.0 on the left side of 1-405 would be Wetland 0.75L. Nine wetlands were delineated within relatively uniform areas of vegetation in wetland and upland areas. The majority of the wetland descriptions reflect late winter conditions observed when field investigations were conducted in early January to late February. Appendix B contains data forms corresponding to formal data plots, state and local wetland rating forms, and functional assessment forms. A glossary defining wetland classification and other terms is provided at the beginning of this report. Green River Wetlands in the Green River drainage basin are generally located between the western project boundary or 1 -5 and the Tukwila/Renton borderr at approximately MP 0.0 to 1.2. Within this section, transportation improvements include "widening of sections of both the north and southbound lanes and the construction of retaining walls. Wetlands in the Green River drainage basin are characterized below. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 3 -2 Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.15R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. 0 0 Wetland 0.1R Size and location: The 0.05 -acre wetland is located in the southeast portion of the 1- 405/1-5 interchange, between 1 -5 northbound lanes and the 1 -5 northbound to SR -518 ramp. The wetland is a small, isolated depression that receives road runoff. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, soft rush, Himalayan blackberry, and bentgrass. Soils: Soils consist of an A layer of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sandy loam extending to 8 inches, over a B horizon of dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) clay loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles. Hydrology. Soils saturated to the surface in the soil pit, with free water present at 15 inches deep. Areas of standing water are present elsewhere in wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.1 R is a PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated /inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system, and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment Primary functions of Wetland 0.1 R are flood flow alteration and sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff from 1-405 and has a long duration for water retention. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.1 R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soils or indicators of wetland hydrology, and the presence of upland plant species. • Wetland 0.15R Size and location: The 0.52 -acre wetland is located north of Southcenter Parkway and south of 1 -5 northbound to 1-405 northbound ramp. Wetland 0.15R is a previous WSDOT mitigation area that is associated with Gilliam Creek. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass. Soils: A layer of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam extending to 7 inches, over a B horizon of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam with dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) mottles. Hydrology. Soils are saturated to the surface, with free water occurring at a depth of 6 inches. Areas of ponding are present elsewhere in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.15R is a PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category 111 wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 2 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment. Primary functions of Wetland 0.15R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff from adjacent roads, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to a stream. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 3 -3 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • Wetland 0.25M Size and location: The 0.07 -acre wetland is located in the median between 1-405 northbound lanes and the 1 -405 to 1 -5 northbound high occupancy vehicle (HOV) ramp. Wetland 0.25M is a maintained swale that receives road runoff and discharges to a culvert. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and red alder saplings. Soils: An Al horizon of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam extending to 4 inches, over an A2 horizon of black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. The B horizon, extending from 8 to 13 inches, consists of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Soils were too compact to sample below 13 inches deep. Hydrology. Soils are saturated to the surface and free water is present at a depth of 9 inches. The area is likely inundated during the early portion of the growing season. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.25M is a broad, swale PEM wetland that is seasonally inundated /saturated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment. Primary functions of Wetland 0.25M are sediment removal, and production and export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.25M was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Wetland 0.3R Size and location: The 1.29 -acre wetland is located south of 1-405 northbound lanes, and northwest of Tukwila Parkway /61st Avenue South intersection. The wetland is located in a depression and is associated with Gilliam Creek. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass in the emergent area, and red alder, Himalayan blackberry, western red cedar, and Pacific willow in the forested area. Soils: Soils in the eastem portion of the wetland are characterized by a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam extending to 10 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of olive gray (5Y 5/2) loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Soils in the western portion of the wetland are a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty clay loam extending to 6 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) clay loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Hydrology. Soils are saturated to the surface in both test pits. Large areas of standing water are present elsewhere in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.3R is a PFO wetland that is seasonally inundated. It is a Category III under Ecology's rating system and a Type 2 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment. Primary functions of Wetland 0.3R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and production and May 2006 3-4 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study 0 0 export of organic matter. The wetland receives road runoff, contains dense herbaceous and deciduous vegetation, and has a surface water connection to Gilliam Creek. Additionally, the wetland has fine- grained mineral soils and large depression areas. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.3R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of the fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.4L Size and location: The 0.11 -acre wetland is located southeast of the Southcenter Boulevard /61st Avenue South intersection. Wetland 0.4L is a long, narrow ditch adjacent to 1-405 southbound lanes. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, common cattail, and bentgrass. Soils: An A horizon of black (5Y 2.5/2) loamy sand extending to 4 inches deep, over a B horizon of light olive gray (5Y 6/2) sand with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles. The soil below 8 inches was too compact to sample. Hydrology. Saturated soil at the surface with free water within 3 inches of the surface in the soil pit. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.4L is a ditch - associated PEM wetland that is seasonally saturated /inundated. It is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary function of Wetland 0.4L is sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff and contains dense herbaceous vegetation. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.4L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators, and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.5L Size and location: The 0.05 -acre wetland is located between Southcenter Boulevard and southbound 1-405. The wetland is a long, narrow ditch that is situated adjacent to 1-405 southbound lanes. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass and soft rush. Soils: Soils in the wetland consist of an A horizon, extending from the surface to 10 inches deep, of a black (10YR 2/1) sandy The B horizon extends from 10 to 16 inches deep and is a dark gray (Gley 1 4/1) gravely loamy sand with yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) mottles. Hydrology: Soils were saturated at the surface and free water was present within 4 inches of the surface of the soil pit. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.5L is a PEM ditch - associated wetland that is seasonally saturated/inundated. It is a Category IV wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. May 2006 3 -5 Wetland Functional Assessment: The primary functions of Wetland 0.5L are sediment removal and nutrient and toxicant removal. The wetland receives stormwater runoff, contains dense herbaceous vegetation, and water is exported via an unconstricted surface water outlet. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.5L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographic changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. Wetland 0.6L Size and location: The 0.17 -acre wetland is located southwest of the Christensen Road /Southcenter Boulevard intersection situated between Southcenter Boulevard and southbound 1-405. Wetland 0.6L is a long ditch that receives water from stormwater runoff and precipitation. It is associated with an unnamed tributary of Gilliam Creek. Vegetation: Dominated by reed canarygrass, black cottonwood, willow, soft rush, and Himalayan blackberry. Soils: Soils in the wetland consist of an A horizon, extending from the surface to 10 inches deep, comprised of a dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy sand with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) mottles. The B horizon, extending from 10 to 16 inches deep, is a loamy sand with a dominant brown (10YR 4/3) and subdominant dark greenish gray (Gley 1 4 /5GY) soil matrix with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) mottles. Hydrology. Soils were saturated at the surface and free water was present within 4 inches of the surface of the soil pit. Standing water was present in a large portion of the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.6L is a PSS wetland that is seasonally saturated. It is a Category III under Ecology's rating system and a Type 3 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.6L are sediment and toxicant removal and production and export of organic matter. The wetland contains dense shrub and herbaceous vegetation and has a surface water connection to a stream. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.6L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of hydric soil indicators and the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 0.9R Size and location: The 1.01 -acre wetland is located south of the southbound interchange of SR -181 from 1 -405 and receives highway stormwater runoff. The wetland includes a large area of open water. Vegetation: The area immediately adjacent to the open water is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, with spikerush, black cottonwood, and reed canarygrass occurring near the open water edges. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • May 2006 3 -8 Soils: An Al horizon of (10YR 2/1) sandy loam extends 2 inches deep, over an A2 horizon of (2.5Y 3/2) sandy loam with brown (10YR 4/4) mottles. Below 10 inches, the B horizon consists of sandy loam (2.5Y 4/4) containing cobbles and sand with brown (10YR 4/2) mottles. Hydrology: Saturated soils to the surface and free water present within 8 inches of the surface of the soil pit. The wetland open water area contained standing water several feet deep. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.9R is a palustrine open water (POW) wetland that is seasonally inundated. It is a Category III wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Category 2 under the City of Tukwila's critical areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Primary functions of Wetland 0.9R are flood flow alteration, sediment removal, and wildlife habitat. This wetland provides the majority of functions evaluated under Null et al. (2000). The wetland receives road runoff and contains aquatic vegetation, and its location near the Green River corridor provides adequate wildlife habitat. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.9R was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to changes in topography. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the presence of upland plant species and change in topography. Wetland 0.94L Size and location: The 0.48 -acre wetland is located north of Southcenter Boulevard, west of Interurban Avenue South, and east of the Green River. The wetland is located in a mitigation site that was constructed in the upland and exports water directly to the Green River. Vegetation: Dominated by red -osier dogwood, bluegrass, and red alder with smaller amounts of black cottonwood and thistle. Soils: A surface layer of black (10YR 2/1) silty loam extending to 3 inches deep, over a subsoil layer of brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam. Hydrology. Soils were not saturated in the soil pit. Some areas of standing water are present in the wetland. Wetland Classification: Wetland 0.94L is a PSS wetland that is seasonally saturated. It is a Category III wetland under Ecology's rating system and a Type 2 under the City of Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment Primary functions of Wetland 0.94L are production and export of organic matter, as well as sediment and toxicant removal. The wetland receives road runoff from inletting culverts and exports water via a surface water connection to the Green River. Downed wood was present as a result of beaver activity; however, it did not appear to be recent. Wetland Determination: The boundary of Wetland 0.94L was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and indicators of wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded primarily to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of wetland hydrology indicators and the presence of upland plant species. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 3 -7 w Wetlandu Identifier . Ares �; (acres) ~• Z, • . ,Cowardin .. Classification' Washington State l r , . Rating-: ;: (Ecology) Local Jurisdiction . and Rating- Local Jurisdiction Buffer Requirement: (feet) ; identified on ; .. Local •. • Wetland Inventory? Y 0.15R 0.52 PEM III Tukwila -2 80 0.1R 0.05 PEM IV Tukwila -3 50 N 0.25M 0.07 PEM IV Tukwila -3 50 N 0.3R 1.29 PFO III Tukwila -2 80 Y 0.4L 0.11 PEM IV Tukwila - 3 50 N 0.5L 0.05 PEM IV Tukwila - 3 50 N 0.6L 0.17 PSS IV Tukwila -3 50 N 0.94L 0.48 PSS III Tukwila -2 80 N 0.9R 1.01 PAB 1 III Tukwila - 2 80 N TOTAL 3.75 3.2.2 Wetland Rating and Classification Summary Table 3 -2 provides a summary of the wetland ratings identified in the wetland descriptions and identifies local wetland buffer requirements. Table 3 -2 Wetland Ratings, City of Tukwila PAB - Palustrine Aquatic Bed; PEM — Palustrine Emergent; PFO — Palu stnne Forested; Scrub -Shrub City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study 3.2.3 Wetland Functions and Values Summary Table 3 -3 summarizes the wetland functional assessment for each wetland as determined on the functional assessment data sheets (Appendix B). Many of the nine wetlands within the entire study area are small (less than one -third acre). Generally, larger wetlands in the study area are typically located in flat, low -lying areas. The smaller wetlands tend to be located in small closed topographic depressions, or are hydrologically connected (linked to or associated with a water source) to hillside seeps or roadside drainage ditches. Due to their size and topographic location, larger wetlands within the study area are more likely to provide a higher number and higher value of beneficial functions than smaller wetlands. The study area is located within the Urban Growth Area, with most of the study area comprised of existing road ROW. All of the wetlands within the study area have been disturbed to some extent by development, including the construction of 1-405 and commercial or residential development in the surrounding area. Consequently, the wetlands are compromised in their ability to provide functions and values. More than one -half of the wetlands were found to have the potential to provide valuable stormwater management functions including: flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and erosion control. Some of these areas have constricted outlets and dense woody vegetation, slowing floodwaters during storm events. Most wetlands have dense herbaceous vegetation that can remove sediment and toxicants present in road runoff. May 2006 3 -8 Table 3 -3 Wetland Functions and Values These wetlands may have diverse vegetation, seasonal or permanent open water, or have evidence of wildlife use such as dens, tracks, scat, or gnawed stumps. Two of the wetlands are likely to provide general value as fish habitat (Wetlands 0.15R and 0.3R). Wetland 0.94L is likely to provide native plant richness. None of the other wetlands are likely to provide uniqueness or heritage value because they do not contain any listed plant or wildlife species, and are not considered bogs or estuary wetlands. The wetlands in the study area are either in WSDOT ROW or extend onto privately owned properties, which limit their educational and recreational uses. 0.6L 0.17 PSS 0.94L 0.48 PSS 0.9R 1.01 PAB TOTAL 3.75 �^ 0.15R 0.52 PEM III X X X ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ 0.1R 0.05 PEM IV X X ✓ 0.25M 0.07 PEM IV X ✓ X 0.3R 1.29 1 PFO III X X 1 X ✓ X T ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 0.4L 0.11 PEM IV X ✓ ✓ 0.5L 0.05 PEM IV xIx ✓ ✓ - ✓ IV III ✓ III X . . �_.._...� X X X ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ PAB - Palustrine Aquatic Bed; PEM — Palustrine Emergent; PFO — Palustrine Forested; PSS — Palustrine Scrub -Shrub ✓ = function likely provided by this wetland X = function considered a primary function City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 3 -9 • 4.0 Impacts During the course of the Project, all or portions of five of the nine wetlands in the City of • Tukwila will be filled or temporarily disturbed. Of the 0.18 acres of wetland impacts in the corridor (Table 4 -1 and Table 4 -2), approximately 0.15 acres will be permanently filled or graded to construct road improvements and 0.03 acres will be temporarily disturbed. 4.1 Permanent Impacts Permanent direct impacts would result from WSDOT filling 0.15 acres of wetland to construct new facilities, diverting or re- directing surface runoff that would be necessary to support wetland hydrology, or filling such a high percentage of the area of a wetland that the remaining area would not function at pre - construction levels (Table 4 -1). 4.2 Temporary Impacts Temporary impacts produce short-term loss of wetland functions during construction and for up to 5 years following construction. They do not, however, result in a permanent Toss of wetlands after the Project is completed because disturbed vegetation or wetland hydrology will eventually be re- established. Approximately 0.03 acres of wetlands would be temporarily disturbed during construction activities, including vegetation clearing and the placement of fill material (Table 4 -1). The extent of short-term degradation would vary depending on the intensity of the temporary impact. Wetlands where the vegetation is cleared or trimmed would still retain some water quality and quantity function, although at a diminished level. Filled wetlands would provide no beneficial functions until they were restored. Wetlands temporarily impacted during construction would be restored to their pre- existing conditions following the completion of work and it is anticipated that they would return to a functioning state within 5 years. 4.3 Functions and Values Overall, the wetlands within the project study area are lower value wetlands related to habitat functions because of their proximity to and association with 1-405. Their primary function is to improve water quality and abate the effects on downstream waters from stormwater flows. Therefore, the temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands in the project area will primarily result in a loss of the stormwater management functions provided by these wetlands. Because of the implementation of stormwater BMPs as part of the Project, stormwater quality will be significantly improved for the corridor as a whole, but wetland Toss will reduce the flood water desynchronization, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and erosion control functions provided by the impacted wetlands. The Project will also result in a reduction of habitat functions provided by wetland areas, and those habitat functions will not be mitigated through stormwater treatment and detention or other water quality BMPs. Therefore, compensatory wetland mitigation will be implemented primarily for impacts to wetland habitat. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 4 -1 Table 4-1 Filled or Disturbed Wetlands, City of Tukwila Permanently Filled Of Otherwise Disturbed Area (acres) Temporarily FIIIed or OthorwlSt Disturbed,• Area (acres) L OCa rz Ecology;; Juriisdictlori Rating) and Rating 0.15R 0.1R 0.05 0.25M 0.07 0.3R 1.29 0.52 - 0.4L ( 0.11 0.08 0.5L 0.05 0.05 0.6L 0.17 0.01 0.94L 0.48 - 0.9R 1.01 0.01 TOTAL 3.75 0.15 IV III 0.01 IV IV 0.01 IV ill 0.01 III 0.03 Tukwila -2 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -2 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -2 Tukwila -2 Wetlan Name/l13- 0.5L Table 4-2 Summary of City of Tukwila Impacted Wetland Area 0.4L 4,670 Permanently Temporarily F1IIQd or Fined am', V etland Sl s Otherwise Otherwise In Right of Disturbed Disturbed: Way Area (sty Area (sf) 1,805 3,348 1,805 32 63 0 0.6L 7,379 276 0.9R 43,697 187 293 TOTAL 57,551 5,372 632 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Ecology Rating) IV IV IV III L ocal Jurisdiction - and Ratlrig Tukwila -3 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -3 Tukwila -2 1 Table includes information for impacted wetlands only. An additional five wetlands were delineated within the City of Tukwila but will not be affected by the Project. May 2006 4-2 :. Wettand4 Identifier R, Area'. (acres) Permanently FIIIed ors Otherwise - • 4 Disturbed Area • . - (acres) Temporarily Filled , or Otherwise.. Disturbed Area . - ' (acres) .:. ,• • Avoidance and Minimization 0.15R 0.52 - - Avoided 0.1R 0.05 - - Avoided 0.25M 0.07 - - Avoided 0.3R 1.29 - - Avoided 0.4L 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.01 - Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. Retaining wall not viable due to safety concems. Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. Retaining wall not viable due to safety concems. 0.5L 0.05 0.6L 0.17 0.01 0.01 Unavoidable due to roadway design standards. 0.94L 0.48 - - Avoided 0.9R 1.01 0.01 0.01 Stormwater outfall designed to minimize impacts to wetland. TOTAL 3.75 0.15 0.03 0 5.0 Recommendations Throughout the design process, WSDOT has identified several opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and their buffers. The most common avoidance and minimization measures included moving stormwater facilities and requiring retaining walls to reduce the extent of fill necessary to construct the road improvements. The overall Project footprint has been reduced to the greatest extent in areas near wetlands to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. 5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the Project design to allow WSDOT to meet the transportation improvement challenge without directly affecting important natural resources: • All wetlands are to be avoided where practicable. • Associated facilities, such as stormwater treatment systems and access roads, are to be located outside of the identified sensitive areas where practicable. • The Project footprint is to be minimized. • Operational analysis will allow Project designers to use existing shoulders or access lanes, thereby reducing the need to extend the road prism. Specific avoidance and minimization measures are identified in Table 5 -1. Table 5 -1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study 0 May 2006 5-1 • • 5.2 Mitigation Sequence In accordance with CEQ regulations, mitigation sequencing includes: 1. Avoidance measures that eliminate the onset of impacts. 2. Minimization measures proposed to decrease the magnitude or severity of the impact. 3. Rectification measures that are part of the Project and repair or restore resources. 4. Reduction or elimination measures that soften the impacts. 5. Compensation measures designed to offset unavoidable adverse impacts. 6. Monitoring measures that become part of the Project to ensure that resources are not further degraded by the Project. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 5-1 r 6.0 Preliminary Compensatory Mitigation WSDOT, in partnership with the City of Renton is developing a mitigation bank called the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank). Mitigation banking is one early - action approach identified in the 1-405 Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Project is part of WSDOT's watershed approach to wetland mitigation. By consolidating the mitigation into one large site, WSDOT has the opportunity to work with a panel of resource agency representatives to create mitigation that specifically contributes aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high - quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. This approach will be used as the wetland mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands within the Springbrook Bank service area, which includes the 1-405 corridor area from the 1-405 and 1 -5 intersection north to the northern city limits of Renton. Therefore, the 0.15 acres of permanent impacts to wetlands for the Project will be compensated with credits from the Springbrook Bank. The Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) was developed to determine the mitigation ratios to be used at the Springbrook Bank. The Wetland Mitigation Memorandum defines the wetland mitigation for the Project. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 6 -1 • 7.0 References City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study City of Tukwila. 2004. City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map. Dated July 15, 2004. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publ. # FWS /OBS- 79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dymess. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 04 -06 -025. Olympia, WA: King County. 1990. King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. Washington, DC. Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office. www.wsdot.wa.00v/ environment /biology /docs/bpitooipdf Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Washington, DC. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. USFWS (United States Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987. National Wetland Inventory, Des Moines Quadrangle. USFWS (United States Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National Wetland Inventory, Mercer Island Quadrangle. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2004. Environmental Procedures Manual M31 -11 Volume 1 and 2. Olympia, WA. WSDOT Environmental Affairs, Engineering Publications. May 2006 7 -1 Common and Taxonomic Names of Plants Observed in the Study Area City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • 0 Appendix A: May 2006 A "- Cbmiirron Name' ", r ' : :` ' _ ; Scientifib' Naini WI$+ TREES big -leaf maple Acer macrophyllum FACU bitter cherry Prunus emarginata FACU' black cottonwood Populus balsamifera FAC cascara Rhamnus purshiana FAC - Douglas -fir Pseudotsuga menziesil FACU' mountain ash Sorbus aucuparia NL one - fruited hawthorn Crataegus monogyna ORN Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia FACW Pacific crabapple Malus fusca FACW Pacific madrona Arbutus menzeisil NL paper birch Betula papyrifera FAC` quaking aspen Populus tremula FAC red alder Alnus rubra FAC Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis FAC westem hemlock Tsuga heterophylla FACU - westem red cedar Thuja plicata FAC SHRUBS beaked hazelnut Corylus comuta FACU black hawthorn Crataegus douglassi FAC black raspberry Rubus leucodermis NL black twin -berry Lonicera Involucrate FAC+* clustered rose Rosa pisocarpa FAC currant Ribes spp. FAC -FAC+ devil's club Oplopanax horridus FAC+ Douglas' spiraea Spiraea douglasil FACW English holly Ilex aqulfolium NL English ivy Hedera helix NL evergreen blackberry Rubus laclniatus FACU Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor FACU honeysuckle Lonicera spp. FACU -FAC Hooker's willow Sallx hookeriana FACW- huckleberry Vaccinium spp. NL -OBL Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis FACU Table A -1 Plant Species List for the Protect Wetlands Study City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 A -1 Common Name . .. Scientific Name WIS' Tong- leaved Oregon grape Berber's nervosa NL Nootka rose Rosa nutkana FAC NL Holodiscus discolor ocean spray Pacific blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus FACW- Pacific willow Salix lasiandra Sambucus racemosa FACW+ FACU red elderberry red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium NL red -osier dogwood Comus stolonifera I FACW salal Gaultheria shaion FACU' salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC+ scotchbroom Cytisus scoparius NL Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana FAC Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW snowberry Symphoricarpos albus FACU tall Oregon grape Berber's aquifolium NL thimbleberry Rubus parvillorus FAC - vine maple Acer circinatum FAC- western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidental's NI white willow Salix alba FACW HERBS American brooklime Veronica americana OBL American vetch Vicia americana NI American waterlily ` Nymphaea odorata OBL aster Aster spp. NL -OBL bedstraw Galium spp. UPL -FACW+ birdsfoot - trefoil Lotus comiculatus FAC bitter nightshade Solanum dulcamara FAC+ bracken fem Pteridium aquilinum FACU bull thistle Cirsium vulgare FACU buttercup Ranunculus spp.. NL -OBL Canadian goldenrod Solidago canadensis FACU Canadian thistle Cirsium arvense FACU+ catchweed bedstraw Galium aparine " FACU coltsfoot Petasites spp. FAC -FACW City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Table A -1 Plant Species List for the Project Wetlands Study May 2006 A -2 tf' V4 4 l ++ C ommon blame ' } , , . 8cientiflc Na WIS - common cat -tail Typha latifolla OBL common groundsel S enecio jacobaea FACU common plantain Plantago major FACU+ common shepards' purse Capsella bursa-pastoris FACU common speedwell Veronica of icinalis NL common St. John's wort Hyperlcum perforatum NL common tansy Tanacetum vulgare NI common vetch Vicla sativa NL common yarrow Achilles millefolium FACU Cooley's hedge - nettle Stachys cooleyae NL cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum FAC+ creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens FACW cress Rorippa spp. FAC + -OBL curly dock Rumex crispus FAC+ dandelion Taraxacum offrcinale FACU deer fem Blechnum splcant FAC + dock Rumex spp. FAC -OBL duckweed Lemna minor OBL English ivy Hedera helix NL English plantain Plantago lanceolate FAC false lily -of- the - valley Maianthemum dilatatum FAC field horsetail Equlsetum a►vense FAC fireweed Epiloblum angustifollum FACU+ foamflower Tiarella trifoliate FAC- forget-me-not Myosotis spp. FAC -FACW foxglove Digitalis purpurea FACU* giant horsetail Equisetum telmatela FACW hairy cats -ear Hypochaeris radicata NL horsetail Equisetum spp. FAC -OBL Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum FACU' lady fem Athyrium filix- femina FAC large -leaf avens Geum macrophyllum FACW-* licorice fem Polypodium glycyrrhiza NL mint Menthe spp. FAC -OBL mustard Brassies campestris NL City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Table A -1 Plant Species List for the Project Wetlands Study May 2006 A -3 t . Common Name - •' .. Scientific Nairn . . .. WIS' oxeye - daisy I Chrysanthemum leucanthemum NL Pacific bedstraw 1 Galium cymosum i FACW Pacific bleedingheart 1Dicentra formosa . FACU' Pacific silverweed • Potentilla anserina OBL pearly everlasting Anaphalls margaritacea NL pig -a- back -plant Tolmiea menziesii FAC' pineapple weed I Matricaria matricarioides FACU I- pondweed ; Potamogeton spp. f Lythrum salicaria OBL FACW+ purple loosestrife red clover Trifolium pratense FACU scouring horsetail l Equlsetum hyemale FACW sheep sorrel 1 Rumex acetosella FACU+ skunk cabbage i Lysichitum americanum OBL smartweed Polygonum spp. FACU -OBL speedwell Veronica spp. NL -OBL sphagnum moss I Sphagnum spp. NL spreading bentgrass ! Agrostis stolonifera FAC+ stinging nettle i Urtica diolca FAC+ strawberry 1 Fragaria virginiana NL sweet coltsfoot I Petasites frigidus FACW- sword fem 1Polystichum munitum FACU thistle ! Cirsium spp. FACU -OBL vetch I Vicia spp. NI -NL i water cress I Rorippa nastursium- aquatica NL water parsley ! Oenanthe sarmentosaa i OBL water starwort 1 Callitriche spp. OBL Watson's willow -weed 1 Epilobium watsonll FACW- westem St. John's wort i Hypericum formosum 1 FAC - white clover , Tnfollum repens FAC* GRASSES, RUSHES, AND SEDGES bluegrass Poa spp. NL -FACW bulrush Scirpus spp. I OBL colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis FAC common spike -rush Eleocharis palustris OBL common timothy Phleum pretense FAC- City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study Table A -1 Plant Species List for the Project Wetlands Study May 2006 A-4 Common Name Scientific Name ;.:'. ,.:_ WIS' common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus FAC creeping velvetgrass Holcus mollis FACU* FACU* Dewey's sedge Carex deweyana fowl bluegrass Poa palustris FAC hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus OBL Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis FAC mannagrass Glyceria spp. t FACW + -OBL meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 1 FACW orchard -grass Dactylis glomerate FACU perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne FACU quackgrass Agropyron repens FAC - red fescue 1 Festuca rubra FAC+ reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW rush Juncus spp. FAC -OBL sedge Carex spp. FAC -OBL slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL small - fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 1 OBL soft rush Juncus effusus FACW spike -rush Eleocharis spp. FACW -OBL spreading bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera FAC+ tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC- tall mannagrass Glyceria elate FACW+ wheatgrass I Agropyron spp. FACU -FAC Table A -1 Plant Species List for the Project Wetlands Stud W etland indicator Status OBL (Obligate): species almost always occur in wetlands under natural conditions (estimated probability is greater than 99 percent). FACW (Facultative wetland): species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability is 67 to 99 percent), but are occasionally found in non - wetlands. FAC (Facultative): species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non - wetlands (estimated probability is 34 to 66 percent). FACU (Facultative upland): species usually occur in non - wetlands (estimated probability is 67 to 99 percent), but are occasionally found in wetlands. UPL (Upland): species almost always occurring in non - wetlands under normal conditions (estimated probability is greater than 99 percent). NL (Not listed): species not listed and presumed to be upland species. + = indicates a species more frequently found in wetlands. - = indicates a species less frequently found in wetlands. * = identifies a tentative assignment based on either limited information or conflicting reviews. City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study May 2006 A -5 City of Tukwila: Wetlands Sensitive Area Study • Appendix. B: Wetland Data Sheets Wetland Delineation Forms Functional Assessment Forms Wetland Rating Forms May 2006 B TABLE OF CONTENTS C SHEET NOo T I T L E 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 VICINITY MAP 3 - 27 PROJECT IMPACTS MAPS & DETAIL SHEETS _ EXHIBIT PURPOSE: Roadway improvements 1-408, to SRI" & SR187,1.405 05 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE 0: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Re COUNTY: King STATE: WA DATE: 4/26/06 HORIZONTAL DATUM: NnD 03/91 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 138 SHEET 1 OF 27 1 8 WETLAND 0.1R WETLAND 0.15R WETLAND 0.25M WETLAND 0.3R WETLAND 0.4L WETLAND 0.5L WETLAND 0.6L WETLAND 0.9R WETLAND 1.7R PURPOSE: Roadway improvements WETLAND 2.2R WETLAND 2.31R WETLAND 2.6L WETLAND 2.81 L WETLAND 2.9L WETLAND 24.7R WETLAND 25.7L WETLAND 25.0L 1O STREAM 09.GR -0.2 20 STREAM 09.GR -0.4 3O STREAM 09.GR -0.7 • STREAM 09.DW-0.8 • STREAM 09.GR -1.6 • STREAM 09.SC -2.8 STREAM 09.SC -2.8 80 STREAM 09.RH -2.6 90 STREAM 09.RH -2.6 10 STREAM 09.SC -2.8 PRING OCk D 11 13 14 I-405,1 -5 to SR169 & SR187, 1-405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE 0: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT Key Map & Vicinity Map STREAM 09.RH-3.0 STREAM 09.RH-3.0 STREAM 08.LW-3.7 STREAM 09.SC -2.8 STREAM 09.SC -25.7 SW 71" ST f'1 SUNSET (Co IS 180TH c 14115 ST EGIN G: -1 : s 47 S I n 13 4 TD -2015L TD -2035L TD -2045R TD -2047R TD -2050R TD -2054L u 1 6 1 171 TD -2108L PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: IGng STATE: WA DATE: 4/26/06 8 9 10 11 12 1 1141 TD -2117L TD -2118L TD -2116R TD -2119L TD -2119R TD -2120R TD -2127L Lp 6 (SOON: ONG: - 122 °13'02" LAT: 47 °26'36" 1151 1 1 1 19 20 1 TD -2128L TD -2148L TD -2158L TD -2155L TD -2159L TD -2162R TD -1065L HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83191 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 2 OF 27 N4&& Temp Perot /railed Temp Peim. 09.GR -0.2 0 0 0 Buffer Buffer 0.4L 0.01 0.08 0 0.05 0.21 0.5L 0 0.05 0 0 0 Saloom Temp Pert /Haired Tent Suffer Perot Buffer 09.GR -0.2 0 0 0 3974 10441 1 WETLAND IMPACTS (Ac) STREAM IMPACTS (sf) Cottage Creek 1 (Stream 09.GC -0.4) 1 Wetland 0.4L :•••• \ •• -. \ , • • '\'\ s oGT h cFN \ r •. '�. � �� TfA 8.4 kO • Ofi 0 z • � r 1 � `.,tom.` »� N. P• 0.50 Wetland 0.5L C14 Gilliam Creek (Stream 09.GR -0.2) TUKWILA PKY PURPOSE: Roadway improvements 4405, I.6 to SR169 6: 8R167, 1405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE S: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: King STATE: WA DATE: 4/26/06 Legend Wetlands NU11 Unsurvayad Wetlands O Proposed Stomnwater Pond Proposed Storm Drain Proposed Right-of-Way Existing RIgtd ofway Easement Une Existing Drainage Culvert with ID .. C ..�..� Piped Stream Culvert wt h ID and direction of flow —1 Flow Arrow Ecology Embankment Cross Section Location .°'. .°.3 shown on 0 Sheet Croce Section direction on Detail Sheet • Ditch — Talent Ditch Open Channel Stream == 0 Existing Stoma Inlets ° Existing Stoma Manholes = Existing Grate Inlet Proposed Wall Underdraln txdsting Edge of Impervious Surface Proposed Edge of Impervious Surface Cut Line Fill Line Existing Guardrail Permanent Wetland Impact ® Temp. Wetland Impel Permanent Stream Impact F.7;7.7.-71 Temp. Stream Impact • Steam and wetland Bu4er PIT Note: Not Not at legend elements are found on every sheet within Ns Ong get KEY PLAN a too 200 Feet HORVANTAL DATUM: NAD 03/91 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 3 OF 27 &yam Temp. Ptmm //Kited Temp. Buffer Plaon. Bu.2W 09.GR -0.2 0 0 0 3974 10441 09.DW-0.8 0 0 0 395 1245 I4 laud Temp Perm /Mi3ed Temp Ba tz/ /farm Ba//ty 0.81 0.01 0.01 0 0.07 0.51 Wetland 0.6L M.P. 0.60 C14 WETLAND IMPACTS (Ac) TUKWILA MY _ _ __ - _ - __ ._ _- _ _ Gilliam Creek (Stream 09.GR -0.2) STREAM IMPACTS (sf) Unnamed trib. to Gilliam (Stream 09.GC-0.7) TD -2035L i , / Gruen Rive y." (Stream 09.15W-0.8) // / / � / . - d j 0 o . 1 i / l ••" • i ....:1c17 ...., PURPOSE: Roadway improvements -405, I.8 to SR189 & SR167,1-405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE #: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: King STATE: WA DATE: 4/28/08 Legend Wetlands \ 1 /, Unsurveyed Wetlands 0 Proposed Stormwater Pond -,� —(• �,- Proposed Stonn Drain Proposed Right-of-Way E:dstlng RightoMn!ay Easement Une ,__E Existing Drainage Culvert with ID Piped Stream Culvert with ID and direction of lbw —, Flow Arrow Ecology Embankment t4) Cross Section Location :v ° .j shown on D Sheet Cross Section direction on Detail Sheet Ditch — Talent Ditch Open Channel Stream - - Limits of Work :: ❑ Existing Storm Inlets ° Existing Storm Manholes = Existing Grate Inlet Proposed Weil Underdraln Existing Edge of Impervious Surface Proposed Edge of lmpenaus Surface Cut Une -My -• Fm Une Existing Guardrail Permanent Wetland Impact ® Temp Wetland impact Permanent Stream Impact Ez.:77.7 Temp. Stream Impact - Stream and Wetland • Buffer Qra - 0, -p,- Note: Not all legend elements are found on every sheet within this drawing set N o zoo o Fooe t HORIZONTAL DATUM: RID 8391 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 5 OF 27 Seen= WSDOT; 2004. KING COUNTY; 2004 1 Last updated: 1:3Z42 PIA 4/26/2006 1 PlAttEnglneettna10041envIrenUARPA 20051Ccep Set14;e0008040k_d05.dan Note: Direction of North Arrow at lower right comer of this sheet. /1 PURPOSE: Roadway Improvements / / / // 4 , ci I • / Wetland 0.6L • 1-405, 1-5 TO SR169 & SR167, 1-405 TO SW 41ST ST REFERENCE it: 200600097 APPUCANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS 0 • TD-2035L 4 • • 4 • Note: Drawing legend is depicted on sheet 5. 60 r 40 z w EXIST ST 1 NG GROUND WETLAND 0.6L. tr1 -7, 20 PERMANENT WETLAND a •"' BUFFER IMPACT i— Lc, i- 4,1 • 0 c.) //—PROPOSED GRADE / , — O x )--- w PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT TEMP. WETLAND IMPACT 60 40 0 0 0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1 +40 ( FT ) SECTION 2 - MP. 0.66 SEE SHEET 5 FOR PLAN VIEW OF THIS SECTION PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of Impacts wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: Kng STATE: WA DATE: 4/26/06 0 20 40 e )k. Feet HORIZONTAL DATUM: PROJECT VERTICAL DATUM NAVD 88 SHEET 6 OF 27 Mani Temp. Prinz //OM& Temp Bab, Pemz Bak - 0.9 R 0.01 0.01 0 0.04 0.19 &van Tama Penn /ndiect Temp Buffor Pe= Bu*• 09.DW-0.8 0 0 0 395 1245 •` Green River • -Stream 09.DW -0.8) • • N TD -2045R • • • • • • • • • .- tVetland 0.9R \\ TD -2011_ \ \\ TD -2047R Propos Stolmwater ..Pond #MP 0.9 • i , 1 1 1 I WETLAND IMPACTS (Ac) ■ 1 Proposed Ecology Embankment VD -2050R STREAM IMPACTS (ef) 1 . 0 • 5 156TH 5T i % I II 1 \ 1 1 � PURPOSE: Roadway improvements 1-405, 1-5 to SR189 & SR187,1.405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE 0: 200600 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: IOng STATE: WA DATE: 4/28/08 Legend Watiands Unsurveyed wetlands O Proposed Stonmvatsr Pond -.� —�► .�- Proposed Storm Drain Proposed RIght-of.Way Existing Right-of-Way Easement Line Existing Drainage Culvert with ID ...c1 �..� Piped Stream Culvert with ID and direction of flow —s Flow Arrow Ecology Embankment Cross Section Location shown on D Sheet Cross Section direction on Detail Sheet - - • --s• Ditch • w Talent Ditch Open Channel Stream - - — - - — Omits of Work Fxdsting Stern Inlets o Existing Stomr Manholes = Existing Grata Inlet Proposed Wall Undentreln - - - Existing Edge of - — - — Impervious Surface Proposed Edge of Impervious Surface - a. —e.- Cutll Une - .w —rw- Fi Line Existing Guardrail Permanent Wetland Impact ® Temp. Wetland Impel Permanent Stream Impact 1.711- Temp. Stream Impact ' • stream and Welland Buffer r�ra Note: Not alt legend elements ere found on every sheet within this drawing set KEY PLAN 0 10o zoo E Feet 9 HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 8391 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 7 OF 27 Source: wSDOT; 2004, KING COUNTY: 2004 1 Lest updated• 113:25 PIA 425/1006 I 1 P1M.1EntOnseMp1004bnvhonUARPA 20051Corp SeMpe0000)40kLd08.dn Note: Direction of North Arrow at lower right comer of this shoot. 7 • Note: Drawing legend is depicted on shoot 7. PURPOSE: Roadway Improvements m 40 0 z 20 60 0 0 +00 1-405, I-5 TO SR169 & SR167, 1-406 TO SW 41ST ST REFERENCE S: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS BUFFER IMPACT PERMANENT WETL ANC 60 0 z WETLAND LL w 0.9R 40 EXISTING s z �C ROUNO o 0 w TEMP. WETLAND 20 w IMPACT w rte_- PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT 0 0 +20 0 +40 0 +60 0 +80 (FT) SECTION 3 - MP. 0.86 y SEE SHEET 7 FOR PLAN VIEW OF THIS SECTION • • • • PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acres of Impacts wetlands and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: King STATE: WA DATE: 4/26/06 • • • • • • • • • \/ / ■ +. 0 20 40 Feet HORIZONTAL DATUM: PROJECT VERT1CAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 8 OF 27 • Nr1V 1 k 1�u6 Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum oEvELoPMENT Attachment 1 1N30Ud013A30 ulNnwwoo � Ol S T 4 ON a3AI3a32! EXHIBIT D MEMORANDUM • 0 DATE: August 30, 2006 TO: Kim Harper & Rebecca Ponzio, Washington State Dept. of Ecology Rebecca McAndrew, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FROM: Allison Ray CC: Terry Drochak & Christina Martinez RE: 1-405, 1-5 to SR 169 Project Wetland Mitigation Memorandum This Wetland Mitigation Memorandum (memo) has been revised in response to comments from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in their memo dated August 17, 2006, regarding the 1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Project (Renton Nickel) Wetland Mitigation Memorandum (memo). This revised memo contains information that corresponds to other parts of the JARPA package such as Attachment 1 — JARPA drawings, Attachment 7 — Wetland Biology Report, and Attachment 8 — Mitigation Bank Instrument (MBI). As such, these documents may be used as references for the review of this wetland mitigation memo, which serves as Attachment 20 of the JARPA package for this project. As a courtesy, this memo was revised using track changes mode so the Ecology and Corps permit reviewers can more easily and quickly review the updated information. Existing Conditions of Impacted Wetlands Seven wetlands that may receive temporary or permanent impacts associated with fill from the 1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Project are referenced within this memo by wetland number. Existing conditions (i.e., size, location, vegetation, soils, and hydrology) of each wetland are based on field visit observations and wetland delineation forms contained in the Wetland Biology Report, which is Attachment 7 of the JARPA package. Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts Impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized by the Renton Nickel project to the greatest extent feasible. Since this project is a widening project, the ability to relocate the roadway did not exist. Since no inner median exists within the majority of this corridor, all widening must occur to the outside of the existing roadway shoulders. However, several avoidance and minimization options still existed and were utilized by the proiect design team: • Where fill widening was required, the project design utilized retaining walls rather than sloped fill road prism to reduce the project footprint. Retaining walls reduce 1 Wetland &TA acres) Permanently Temporarily Avoidance and Minimization Filled or Filled or Otherwise Otherwise Disturbed Disturbed Area (acresl acres) _Identifier 0.4L _ 0.11 + Area 0.08 0.01 The roadway is on a curve through this area. Design standards require over 5 feet (approx. 21 feet from center of inside lane) of additional width beyond the 0.5L (L05 0.17 0.05 0.01 outside shoulder for horizontal sight distance. If a wall was used. it would have to be set back 7 feet or more from the edge of the roadway and would sit in 0.6L 0.01 the wetlands. impacting them as much or more than the fill slope that is proposed. 0.9R 1.01 0.01 0.01 Stormwater outfall designed to minimize impacts to wetland. 1.7R 0.46 0.46 - Unavoidable due to roadwav design standards and to ay.id im.acts to local business. 2.6L 0.02 0.02 - The roadway widening and existing roadway peometrics require the unavoidable filling of this wetland. 25.0L 5.88 0.99 1.56 A retaining wall will be constructed along the entirety of this wetland to avoid and minimize impacts. A new ecology embankment will need to be constructed that will extend the wall an additional 10 feet to the west. This additional 10 feet is required to meet the flow (head) requirements to allow the ecology embankment to function .ro.erl TOTAL 7.7 1.62 0.59 _ 0 impacts if the road prism slope extends further than the width of the retaining wall. In some instances. retaining walls are not feasible due to safety concerns. • Where feasible, lane re- striping was utilized to minimize the amount of new impervious surface that would be required, thereby decreasing the project impact footprint. • Stormwater treatment ponds were located to avoid wetland impacts and stormwater outfall pipes were placed to avoid or minimize wetland impacts, to the greatest extent feasible. • Signage, electrical structures and utility lines were located to avoid impacts to wetlands. Table 1 lists wetland avoidance and minimization measures taken by the 1-405 Project design team and identifies why potential impacts to individual wetlands were unavoidable. Permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands are graphically depicted in Attachment 1 — JARPA drawings of the JARPA package. Table 1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 2 Wetland Identifier Area (acres) Permanently Filled or Otherwise Disturbed Wetland Area (acres) Temporarily Filled or Otherwise Disturbed Wetland Area (acres) Cowardin Classification' Ecology Rating Local Jurisdiction and Rating HGM Classification 0.4L 0.11 0.08 0.01 PEM IV Tukwila -3 Depressional 0.5L 0.05 0.05 - PEM IV Tukwila -3 Depressional 0.6L 0.17 0.01 0.01 PSS N Tukwila -3 Depressional 0.9R 1.01 0.01 0.01 PAB III Tukwila -2 Depressional 1.7R 0.46 0.46 - PSS III Renton -3 Depressional 2.6L 0.02 0.02 - PEM N Renton -NR Depressional 25.0L 5.88 0.99 0.56 PSS III Renton -3 Depressional TOTAL 7.70 1.62 0.59 Classification System Class Area (Ac.) Percent USFWS (Cowardin) PSS t46 90.12% PEM 0.15 9.26% PAB 0.01 0.62% Local Jurisdiction 2 0.01 0.62% 3 1.59 98.15% Washington Department III 1.46 90.12% of Ecology IV 0.16 9.88% Hvdrogeomorohic Depressional 1.62 100.00% 0 Unavoidable Wetland Impacts Wetlands that will be impacted by the Project are listed and classified in Tables 2 and 3 under four different classification systems: Cowardin (Cowardin et aI.1979), Ecology (Ecology 1997), local, and Hydrogeomorphic (HGM). Wetlands were classified during field visits and wetland delineations using the respective rating form. Graphical depictions of impacted wetland areas can be found in Attachment 1 - JARPA drawings and Attachment 7 - Wetland Biology Report. Table 2 Potential Impacts to Wetlands by Classification PEM - Palustrine Emergent; PSS - Palustrine Scrub- Shrub; PAB - Palustrine Aquatic Bed 2 NR - Non - regulated. City of Renton Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 square feet are exempt from regulation under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3 -50 B[7]). City of Tukwila wetlands that are 1,000 square feet and less that do not meet any wetland rating criteria are exempt from requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.45 (TMC 18.45.180A). 3 HGM classification is based on wetland rating forms (Western Washington region). Table 3 Wetland Impact Summary 3 0 0 Impacted Wetland Functions Impacted wetland functions were assessed based on the Western Washington Wetland Rating forms (Hrubv, 2004) as described in Attachment 7 — Wetland Biology Report. The Renton Nickel Project will impact the following wetland functions (water quality, hydrologic, and habitat): Water Quality - The wetlands impacted by the Renton Nickel project generally perform water quality functions at a low level, with the exception that Wetlands 0.5L (Category IV, PEM), 0.6L (Category IV, PSS) and 25.0L (Category 111. PSS) perform these functions at a moderate level. Many of these wetlands, including portions of Wetlands 0.5L, 0.6L and 25.0L, are routinely mowed or have other vegetation routinely removed by roadway maintenance activities. This vegetation stress likely reduces the water quality functions of these wetlands. All of the wetlands receive minimally treated or untreated stormwater runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces, including the adjacent 1-405 and SR 167 roadways. However. many of these wetlands are small. have either no obvious outlet, the outlet is a ditch. or have unconstricted surface outlets. In addition, the overall area of seasonal ponding for most of these wetlands is relatively small in relation to the size of the total wetland area. Hydrologic - The wetlands to be impacted by the Renton Nickel project generally perform hydrologic functions at a low level. The lone exception is Wetland 0.9R (Category III, AB), which performs this function at a moderate level. However, Wetland 0.9R functions essentially as an open -water pond with no surface outlet. Many of these wetlands are small, have either no obvious outlet, the outlet is a ditch, or have unconstricted surface outlets. In addition, the overall area and depth of seasonal pondinq for most of these wetlands is relatively small in relation to the size of the total wetland area. In addition, the sizes of the wetlands are very small in relation to the size of the sub - basin. Habitat - The wetlands to be impacted by the Renton Nickel project generally perform habitat functions at a low level, with the exception that Wetlands 0.9R (Category III, AB) and 25.0L (Category III, PSS) perform these functions at a moderate level. Many of these wetlands, including portions of Wetlands 25.0L, are partially comprised of non - native invasive vegetation and are routinely mowed or have other vegetation routinely removed by roadway maintenance activities. Wetland 0.9R functions essentially as an open -water pond with no surface outlet. However, Wetland 25.0L does maintain a surface connection with Panther Creek during and immediately following storm events. With the possible exception of Wetland 25.0L, none of the impacted wetlands provide any fish habitat since they have no direct connection to streams. All of the wetlands receive minimally treated or untreated stormwater runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces, including the adjacent 1 -405 or SR 167 roadways. All of the wetlands are located adjacent to the roadway and contain little or no vegetated buffer. None of the wetlands are inter - connected by a vegetated corridor, the number of native plant 4 . 0 species found within the wetlands is generally low. and special habitat features such as LWD, snags or brush piles are virtually non - existent. Wetland Functions Provided at Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank Water quality. hydrologic and habitat functions are all expected to increase significantly at the Springbrook Bank as a result of increasing the variety of hydrologic regimes, increasing the number and structure of vegetative communities, increasing the number and diversity of physical habitat structures, and increasing the amount of wetland area. The increase in wetland area and functions described below will mitigate for the decrease in wetland area and functions caused by the Renton Nickel proiect. Water Quality - All water quality functional attributes, which are currently functioning at a low to moderate level, will experience a substantial increase in level of function. The restoration at the Springbrook Bank is expected to result in water quality functional attributes increasing to a moderate to high level. Restoration elements that will provide water quality functional improvements include increasing wetland area. adding additional vegetation classes and increasing vegetative densities, increasing the connectivity of wetlands to Springbrook Creek, increasing the ratio of wetland to stream width, and increasing vegetative cover over and adiacent to Sprinqbrook Creek. Hydrologic - All hydrologic functional attributes, which are currently functioning at a low to moderate level, will experience a substantial increase in level of function. The restoration at the Springbrook Bank is expected to result in hydrologic functional attributes increasing to a moderate to high level. Restoration elements that will provide hydrologic functional improvements include increasing wetland area and flood storage capacity, extending the wetland hydroperiod, and increasing the connectivity of large wetland areas to Sprinqbrook Creek. Habitat - All habitat functional attributes, which are currently functioning at a low to moderate level, will experience a substantial increase in level of function. The restoration at the Springbrook Bank is expected to result in habitat functional attributes increasing to a moderate to high level. Restoration elements that will provide habitat functional improvements include the following: increasing wetland area, increasing the number of vegetation strata, increasing the number of water depth classes, increasing the number of vertical snags, brush piles and Large Woody Debris (LWD), increasing canopy closure over wetlands and riparian areas, increasing the number of hydrologic regimes. increasing the number of native plant species and assemblages, increasing vegetative class interspersion, 5 0 improving buffer conditions, increasing the diversity of plant communities currently dominated by reed canarvgrass and Himalayan blackberry, re- connecting existing wetland areas to Springbrook Creek. and connecting new wetland areas to Springbrook Creek. A more detailed description of the expected changes in function level for each functional category (water quality, hydrologic. and habitat) at the Springbrook Bank is located in Tables 2 -3, 2-4, 2 -5 and 2 -6 in the Springbrook MBI. Wetland Functional Trade -offs Stormwater Facilities - The Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Sprinqbrook Bank), which is located within the Springbrook Creek drainage sub -basin in the Lower Green River Sub - watershed. will replace the wetland functions (water quality. hydrologic, and habitat) impacted as a result of the 1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Project. The proposed stormwater facilities to be constructed onsite as required by the Highway Runoff Manual (see Attachment 4 — Stormwater Management Concept), will provide additional replacement of water quality and hydrologic wetland functions impacted by the Project. Each of the wetlands impacted by the Renton Nickel project currently receives hydrology via surface stormwater runoff from the existing roadway impervious surfaces. Currently. this stormwater runoff is not treated for flow control (stormwater detention) and much of the area does not receive water quality treatment. The Project proposes to construct a series of stormwater treatment facilities (i.e., stormwater treatment ponds, ecology embankments, etc.) throughout the entire project corridor to provide flow control and water quality treatment for the new impervious areas and to retrofit portions of the existing impervious areas. As a result, stormwater runoff rates from the project site will be more controlled (less flashy) and will contain less sediment and pollutants, thereby lessening the burden on adjacent wetlands to perform these water quality and hydrologic functions. Offsetting Neighboring Drainage Sub -Basin Resource Functions - The Project proposes to fill all of Wetland 0.5L (Category IV, PEM) and portions of Wetland 0.4L (Category IV. PEM) and Wetland 0.6L (Category IV, PSS). The total amount of proposed fill equals 0.14 acres. These three wetlands are located within the Sprinqbrook Bank service area and within the Gilliam Creek drainage sub - basin. (The Gilliam Creek drainage sub -basin drains to the left (west) bank of the Green River. The Springbrook Bank is located in the Sprinqbrook Creek drainage sub - basin, which drains to the right (east) bank of the Green River. Both drainage sub - basins are located within the Lower Green River Sub - watershed and within the Sprinqbrook Bank service area.) These small wetlands are immediately adjacent to the existing 1-405 roadway shoulder and currently experience frequent disturbances from roadway maintenance activities such as mowing, trash deposition typical of roadway ditches. and receive untreated stormwater runoff. 6 0 0 Mitigating the Toss of these small wetlands at the Springbrook Bank site is appropriate since all wetland functions (water quality, hydrologic and habitat) at the Sprinqbrook Bank would provide a higher level of function within the Lower Green River Sub - watershed than these three existing wetlands currently provide. The replacement of water quality and hydrologic functions, which are low to moderate, will be supplemented within the Gilliam Creek drainage sub -basin by the proposed stormwater treatment facilities in that portion of the 1-405 corridor. The combination of Springbrook Bank credits and installation of stormwater treatment facilities in this area will adequately compensate for the lost wetland functions within the Gilliam Creek drainage sub - basin. Substituting With Different Habitat Type - The project also proposes to fill 0.01 acres of Wetland 0.9R (Category 111, AB), which is located within the same drainage sub -basin as the Springbrook Bank. This wetland has no surface connection to other surface waters and essentially functions as an open - water pond with a vegetated perimeter of willows. This wetland receives a combination of minimally treated stormwater runoff from portions of the 1-405 roadway and treated stormwater runoff from an adjacent hotel parking lot. While the Springbrook Bank does not propose to create AB wetlands, the PFO, PSS and PEM wetlands proposed at the Springbrook Bank will be surficiallv connected to Springbrook Creek and are expected to function at a higher level for water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions than the 0.01 acre portion of Wetland 0.9R that will be filled as a result of the Renton Nickel project. Therefore, mitigating the loss of this wetland area with Springbrook Bank credits is appropriate. Assessment of Indirect Impacts Projects that directly fill portions of wetlands may cause additional indirect impacts to the remaining portions of wetlands if the remnant piece is too small to properly function. No indirect impacts were identified for the 1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Project. Most of the wetlands impacted are either completely filled or have only a small sliver filled. Only one wetland will be mostly filled; the project will fill 0.08 of the 0.11 acre Wetland 0.4L. The remaining 0.03 acres will continue to maintain wetland hydrology, supported by runoff from the adjacent steep slope. The wetland, although small, will still provide water quality improvement, as well as organic matter production and export functions. Wetland Mitigation Site Selection To fully compensate for unavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands from the project, WSDOT proposes to debit wetland mitigation credits from the Springbrook Bank. Springbrook Bank is a large site located along significant habitat corridors (Springbrook Creek and BNSF railroad right -of -way) that targets habitat functional improvements at a large scale with potential for benefits beyond the bank site boundaries. Through these habitat corridors, the Springbrook Bank is connected to other nearby mitigation sites and Springbrook Creek. As a result of wetland creation, rehabilitation. enhancement activities, the Springbrook Bank provides a greater surface water connection between onsite wetlands and Sprinqbrook Creek. 7 _Category of Impacted Wetland Credit Required per Impact Acre I Case -bv -Case II 1.00 III 0.85 IV 0.70 . 0 As identified in the 1 -405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects- Final Environmental Impact Statement, mitigation banking is an option where on -site mitigation is not possible or is less environmentally beneficial. Mitigation banking would allow acquisition of credits, which go toward enhancing, creating, or restoring wetlands at a designated site. Wetland mitigation credits would adequately compensate for unavoidable project wetland impacts. In highly urban - developed watersheds such as those where this project is located, suitable vacant parcels available for wetland mitigation are rare. Identification of available parcels for mitigation is dependent upon specific land use and real estate conditions. Also, since future phases of 1-405 widening are planned, wetland creation within existing 1-405 right -of -way or within the future 1-405 widening footprint is unfeasible. As much as possible, mitigation sites should provide connectivity with the remaining wetlands within the basin. Finding non - wetland property in proximity to a suitable hydrologic source is increasingly difficult due to increased land use development pressures. In some instances, offsite and /or out -of -kind mitigation options may provide adequate or even higher levels of wetland /watershed functions than onsite and /or in -kind wetland replacement. Due to the constraints listed above, all of which apply, this project determined that an offsite mitigation option in the form of a large wetland mitigation bank was the preferred option to meet the wetland mitigation needs of this project. Proposed Mitigation Credits Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of each credit is equal to its net ecological benefit. For the Springbrook Bank, the value of one credit was developed to be equal in value to 1 acre of Category 11 wetland. To state it another way, Sprinqbrook Bank credits were developed to compensate at a 1:1 ratio for adverse impacts to a Category 11 wetland. The number of credits required to compensate for each acre of Category 1, III, or IV wetland impact differs because each wetland category has a different level of function on a per -acre basis. Table 5 illustrates the Springbrook Bank credit compensation ratio for each Category of wetland impact. Table 5 Credits Required for Wetland Impacts' 1 Table 4-2 of Springbrook Wetland and Habitat MBI. 8 Wetland Total Wetland Permanently Cowardin Ecolouv Local Credit Bank Bank Filled or Credi Cl red Otherwise Reoulred Debl D ebt ; Disturbed Impact Amo Amoun Wetland ty Wetland by Ecoloav Area Area Jurisdiction ands Acre Identifier acres acres 1 Classification Ratin, Identifier Ratin 0.4L 0.11 0.08 PEM IV Tukwila -3 0 0.056 0.112 0.5L 0.05 0.05 PEM , Tukwila -3 0.035 0.6L 0.17 0.01 PSS Tukwila -3 0.007 2.6L 0.02 0.02 PEM Renton -NR 0.014 0.9R 1.01 0.01 PAB 1 1 1 Tukwila -2 0 .8 5 0.0085 11241 1.7R 0.46 0.46 PSS Renton -3 0.391 25.0L 5.88 0.99 PSS Renton -3 0.8415 TOTAL 7 1.62 _ _ 1.353 1.353 For example. if a proposed project would impact 3 acres of Category II wetlands, a total of 3.0 credits would be debited from the Springbrook Bank to compensate for that impact. If a proposed project would impact 3 acres of Category III wetlands. a total of 2.55 credits would be debited from the Springbrook Bank to compensate for that impact. The Renton Nickel Project proposes to impact 1.46 of Category III wetlands and 0.16 Category IV wetlands. To fully compensate for these project impacts. WSDOT proposes to debit 1.353 wetland mitigation credits from the Springbrook Bank credit ledger. By debiting credits representing wetlands of moderate to high functional values (water quality. hydrologic. and habitat) to compensate for the loss of wetlands with low to moderate functional values (water quality, hydrologic. and habitat). the net ecological benefits represented by 1.353 Sprinqbrook Bank credits will offset the loss of wetland area and functions caused by the Renton Nickel project. Table 6 provides a summary of the wetland mitigation credit debit proposed by the Renton Nickel project. Wetlands temporarily impacted by construction activities (0.59 acres) will be restored to pre- construction conditions immediately after construction. Table 6 summarizes the credit withdrawal amounts for all wetlands permanently impacted by the Project. More detailed information about mitigation credit compensation ratios can found in Chapter 4 of the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) ( WSDOT 2006). Table 6 Mitigation Credit Debit Summary Table ' Graphical representation of project wetland impact areas are depicted in the I-405, I -5 to SR 169 Project JARPA drawings. 2 NR - Non - regulated. City of Renton Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 square feet are exempt from regulation under RMC Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-50 B[7]). City of Tukwila wetlands that are 1,000 square feet and less that do not meet any wetland rating criteria are exempt from requirements of the TMC Chapter 18.45 (TMC 18.45.180A). 3 Per section 4.3 of the Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) 9 1 . 0 Springbrook Bank — Purpose, Goal. and Objectives Specific to the Project, the purpose of Springbrook Bank is to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within the service area. The service area of Springbrook Bank includes portions of Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 8 and 9, which include the Lower Green River, Black River, West Lake Washington, East Lake Washington, May Creek, and Mill Creek Basins, and the Lower Cedar River Basin to SR 18. The service area is described in more detail in Chapter 1.3 of the MBI. The goal of Springbrook Bank is to increase wetland area and encourage improved hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions, while facilitating environmental education opportunities. The objectives of Springbrook Bank are to re- establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres of wetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. The proposed restoration and enhancement activities will re- connect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re- establish wetlands, and may improve water quality, hydrologic, floodplain, habitat, and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. WSDOT anticipates using its credits from Springbrook Bank within the service area. The functional improvements at the Springbrook Bank site are outlined in more detail in Chapters 2.6 and 2.7 of the MBI. Springbrook Bank objectives are described in more detail in Chapter 3 of the MBI. Credit Purchase and Timing Credits will be released from the Springbrook Bank according to Table 4 -3 of the MBI, provided that the Springbrook Bank demonstrates success in meeting the performance standards outlined in the MBI. The performance standard that must be met to release the initial 4.5 credits for use by the Project is not associated with achieving construction milestones or vegetation growth parameters. Instead, the performance standard associated with the initial credit release is the approval /signing of the MBI, the MOA. and the recording of the conservation easement for the Springbrook Bank site. The credit release process, including performance standard milestones, is outlined in Chapter 4 of the MBI. When the performance standard allowing initial credit release is met, the Project team will provide this information to the Multi- Agency Permitting (MAP) Team members as either part of the permitting process or as a condition of the issued permit(s), depending on the date of credit release. Criteria for Using Bank Credits For a project to use credits from the Springbrook Bank, the wetlands or aquatic resources impacted by the project must be located within the service area and meet the Springbrook Bank's purpose, goal, and objectives. The 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project, 1 -5 to SR 169 is located entirely within the service area of the Springbrook Bank. In addition, the wetland mitigation needs of the Project correspond with the purpose, goals, and objectives of the Springbrook Bank. 1 0 • • Therefore, the Project meets all required criteria for use of Springbrook Bank credits for compensation of unavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands. 11 References • o City of Renton. 1992. Renton's Critical Areas Inventory. Prepared by Jones and Stokes. City of Tukwila. 2004. City of Tukwila Wetland/Watercourse Buffer Map. Dated July 15, 2004. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publ. # FWS /OBS- 79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96 -94. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04 -06 -014. Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office. www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biology/docs/bpjtool.pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2002. 1-405 Corridor Program NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2006. Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank: Mitigation Bank Instrument. Final Draft Dated May 31, 2006. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2006. 1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169, Renton Nickel Improvement Project: Wetland Biology Report. Final Dated May, 2006. 12 1 RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 12 Sensitive Areas Memorandum EXHIBIT E Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects SENSITIVE AREAS REVIEW MEMO 600 —108th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Main 425 -456 -8500 Fax 425- 456 -8600 May 23, 2006 By Joseph Pursley, Permit Coordinator Subject I -405, I -5 to SR- 169 – Renton Nickel Improvement Project —City of Tukwila, Sensitive Areas Special Studies Review Introduction I -405, I -5 to SR- 169 – Renton Nickel Improvement Project (Project) improvements include a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes, bridge replacements, improvements to the SR -167/I -405 interchange, and reconfiguration of the stormwater drainage system. Impacts to aquatic resources (wetlands and streams) will occur from highway widening and reconfiguration of the stormwater drainage system. Impacts will include permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands, and permanent and temporary impacts to wetland and stream buffers. See Attachment 3 – JARPA Drawings and Attachment 6 – Wetland Sensitive Area Study included with this submittal. The proposed Project is permitted by Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.45.070; however, a proposed new stormwater outfall into Wetland 0.9L (Nelson side channel) is subject to administrative review (TMC 18.45.070(B)). Highway widening involves cutting into banks and filling depressions within the highway prism. In some locations, fill will be placed in wetlands to widen the highway and to accommodate related highway infrastructure. The proposed stormwater drainage system for existing and new impervious surfaces includes stormwater collection and treatment facilities. The stormwater collection facilities include drainage ditches and pipes, ecology embankments, detention facilities, and flow control structures. Impacts to aquatic resources will be related to grading and filling activities. One outfall from a new stormwater facility will be placed in Wetland 0.9L (Nelson side channel). Since Wetland 0.9L is subsurficially connected to the hydrology of the Green River, the proposed outfall discharge will not adversely affect the water level fluctuations in Wetland 0.9L or the Green River. Temporary Impacts Up to three wetlands may be temporarily impacted during construction. Temporary impacts include the potential cutting or crushing of vegetation within these areas during construction. Temporary impact areas will either remain at or be restored to preconstruction elevations and vegetation will be restored to preconstruction conditions, as necessary. Temporary impacts to the three wetlands will total 0.03 acres. Temporary impacts will also occur to three wetland • • � buffers totaling 0.16 acres. Impacts will occur from construction of stormwater facilities and highway widening. Temporary impacts will not occur to streams within the City of Tukwila. Temporary impacts will occur to two stream buffers totaling 1.0 acres. Impacts will occur from construction of stormwater facilities, utility protection, and highway widening. Permanent Impacts Permanent impacts will occur to four wetlands totaling approximately 0.15 acres. One wetland will be completely filled and three will be partially filled. Impacts will occur as a result of a stormwater facility and highway widening. Avoidance and Minimization Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will use Best Management Practices (BMPs), Standard WSDOT Procedures and Specifications, and design elements to avoid or minimize potential effects to the environment. The following general avoidance and minimization measures will be used: • WSDOT will utilize a commitment tracking system to identify all commitments made during Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) /State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design, and permitting. All Project commitments will be clearly communicated in the Request for Proposals (RFP) to the Design- Builder, who will in turn communicate commitments to Project office staff and supporting design offices. Commitments will be tracked throughout the various stages of the Project delivery. • The Design- Builder will be required to prepare and implement an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) and assign an Environmental Compliance Manager (ECM). • Prior to the start of construction, all sensitive areas and clearing limits will be marked with high visibility construction fencing, and erosion control devices will be placed to prevent runoff of sediment into wetlands and streams. The Design- Builder will also show environmental commitments on plan sheets when applicable. • Impacts to wetlands and streams will be minimized during construction through the use of temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs. The Design- Builder will be required to prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in accordance with the Highway Runoff Manual, environmental commitments, and contract requirements. • All washwater and concrete -laden water associated with construction will be treated to meet state of Washington surface water quality standards (Chapter 173 -201A Washington Administrative Code [WAC]) prior to discharge into surface waterbodies. WSDOT and the Design- Builder will provide assurance that all long -term compliance expectations are passed along to the appropriate responsible parties. T:\Environmental (Project Level)\South Renton_Nickel \12- Permitting \Tukwila shoreline permit (Final)\Attachment 12 (Sensitive Areas Memo)\Sensitive Areas memo.doc 2 BMT • o Mitigation The Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank) will provide adequate mitigation credits necessary to compensate for unavoidable permanent impacts up to 0.15 acres of wetlands and 0.16 acres of wetland buffers resulting from the Project. See Attachment 6 — Wetland Sensitive Area Study and Attachment 13 — Wetland Mitigation Memorandum for a description on how mitigation will work with the Springbrook Bank. Temporary impacts to wetlands, and wetland and stream buffers, will be restored to preconstruction elevations. Hydrology and vegetation will be restored with native plantings where applicable. T:\Environmental (Project Level)\South_Renton3Nickel \12- Permitting \Tukwila shoreline permit (Final)\Attachment 12 (Sensitive Areas Memo)\Sensitive Areas memo.doc 3 10/3/2005 3t48,37 PM MBIon PitshEnginmeringh004hdrairrogehemPtbitshSouth_Renton.01.NK.TPA,dor 1 8 A IN1 9 2111 . 0 -121-01■ _b. 0 13 vi co uJ c , o m 0 z > o () z o 0 z m c) 73 m (11 0 > 1—o z 7: 0 0 0 _ Z m m --u m 90 z m z 0 4 [.I.' 1..1.: T 1 1 . --,. -1111. f II; -.. *\,\.--‘ p;)1\ ,,,,s7Y--- •-•,-. _ • C. , ,... ./ .,..„.......,..,,,,,„,_ - --e ,...„_... _ _ ..„..„..,..-eic„,..,:.„„4„.,__ 1 „ ----: / ii ____ gr,-L_ . „,,, as r,, / J jt ." • • - ". • 1 t ' V , t 4 t. • e l's Q41. . 4*, • • s ._ **1 77 1 / st ••- # . _41 - - - ,)•• r,t 0 $ ,. • . — • -: i--.1...t.,. la, ' '',.. • • A ,' ' ....11 • , „ato .- • 40 ,.% - A ti 0 N.- • • ■1 • • 4 _ •-*'” . :•••••_••,. • _ . alt. SI:',..2.: , ---..L.7.---"Z■: .•; ./..! .v.; :. , , ',, , .. -----. -=---.77.■--,,..._-_,„... WNW F .-.......,00.,Li) tiliAr ,.. j . ...., '..".... ..„."-Z.,"•• .„ ........ ..e,.. „ `.-2.Z., ..:-.......; • :=4,1110151Nrjyan _.„, •-. •-■ - -...;,,;7...,_ ••■• ...., ,1 I, 41 :-..... .r ■••• 1 - x. • " V ' 1 ql 1 ' " i . ± • P . . i 1., , .I„ . 1 L - 7 .- 1M - -.: - t., II -- 7. -- .;_ r _ .z. ,--- - ,.' 4 I •: . r r3. , • " • - .///- 1 • • , • .1„ • ,) Fir'' • 1/4.„Itst - ••••• . • Milli - ,,,,,, , •• ,., . , .://f , - , all 1 • ,„;f, / .0 ,..., ,/,,/ ! .. • ..,- -. -... ..... ...,.. „.i. - -6 ‘• ; -. ,•. /-i - - - ?fi„,.*".itt , .. /• /),„ .. i . .:; 1 .: . -- i !.,-- ,-,41rifi , .. - ' . ,/' - ( Il j 1,, I q, At ij„.. • . ,I ri Pit ' - . ...a ,.. /1 • ' / r' -;.*'•-.. •!,,' , .• ' --4„. • . : • ''''', /. /: il .11 , .. : -1 111 ' t ' ••j•' . --.‘ -- \\,--)'-' • .- , ../i/ > -, • . I __,.;.•-•'"-. -- : - - AL - 11 - 1 -----= ,--04 ::':-._ ., AN I ' • • -------•- - , \ • „. • • ) • 14= INTERSIATE Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects January 18, 2007 Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98118 Re: Response to City of Tukwila comments —L040, Special Permission Director for 1- 405 Nickel Fund improvements Dear Ms. Lumb: This letter is in response to comments we received via fax from the City of Tukwila on December 27, 2006. The responses reflect the conversations held between the City and the 1 -405 Project Team during our meeting on December 29, 2006. 1 -405 Project Team responses to the City's comments are listed below. 1. We understand that the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank credits are not exactly equivalent to acreage and we understand your argument about the lower risk with the mitigation banking approach versus the more standard mitigation. However, the banking credits are still based on acreage. Our Sensitive Areas Ordinance makes no provision for lower mitigation ratios that those established (i.e. 1.5:1 for restoration or creation and 3:1 for enhancement). We believe that additional mitigation must be provided that provides at least as much acreage as our code would require. This may mean that WSDOT needs to use more credits from the bank, or that some additional wetland mitigation needs to be done in Tukwila. In order to meet your 1.5:1 ratio for wetlands impacts, the 1 -405 Project Team proposes to modify the amount of credits to be debited from the Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (the Bank). The 1 -405 Project Team intended to debit 0.107 credits from the Bank for impacts to Category 11 and 111 wetlands within the City of Tukwila. Since this time, that-405 Project Team has removed the proposed pond in the Nelson Side Channel from the Project design, resulting in a reduction in wetland impacts by 0.01 acre. With this reduction in impacts adjacent to the Nelson Side Channel, the project no longer has any Category 11 wetland impacts within the City of Tukwila. Using a ratio that is 1.5 times the ratio previously used, the 1 -405 Project Team will now debit 0.148 credits from the Bank to mitigate for the impacts to Category 111 wetlands resulting from the Project. Please see the table below for details on the revised credits to be debited from the Bank. EXHIBIT G Wetland Identifier Total Wetland Area (acres) Permanently Filled or Otherwise Disturbed Wetland Area (acres) Cowardin Classification Ecology Rating Local Jurisdiction and Rating Credit Required per Impact Acre Bank Credit Debit Amount by Wetland Identifier Bank Credit Debit Amount by Ecology Rating 0.148 0.4L 0.11 0.08 PEM IV Tukwila -3 1.05 0.084 0.5L 0.05 0.05 PEM Tukwila -3 0.053 0.6L 0.17 0.01 PSS Tukwila -3 0.011 While the 1 -405 Project Team has decided to take this approach for the Renton Nickel Project, WSDOT will work with the City to determine the appropriate wetland mitigation ratios for future WSDOT projects occurring within the City of Tukwila's jurisdiction. 2. For wetlands that will have permanent buffer impacts, we would like to see buffer enhancement carried our in the remaining buffers of the particular wetland that will be impacted, instead of assuming those impacts will be mitigated at the Springbrook Mitigation Bank. if that is not possible, then we would like to see some buffer enhancement to wetlands elsewhere in the Gilliam Creek corridor. We will be happy to discuss this with you further. The 1 -405 Project Team will provide wetland buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to wetland buffers in the area called out as the `Wetland Buffer Enhancement Area" and identified in Attachment 1 — Buffer Enhancement Areas. The 1 -405 Project Team will enhance the wetland buffer area at a 1:1 ratio. Permanent impacts to wetland buffers total 31,363 square feet (0.72 acre); therefore, a total of 31,363 square feet of wetland buffer enhancement will be provided in the `Wetland Buffer Enhancement Area." The wetland buffer will be planted with native wetland buffer species, such as Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, Snowberry, Redtwig Dogwood, Red - flowering currant, Scouler's willow and Cascara. Native wetland buffer plant species will be planted in areas of sparse vegetation or limited ground cover. The placement and spacing of the plants will vary to minimize mortality through competition with existing native species. Native plants will be planted on 4- to 6 -foot centers where possible. Our goal is to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. 3. For mitigation of temporary wetland buffer impacts and temporary stream buffer impacts, the Sensitive Areas Memo says that there will be "native plantings where applicable." We need more detail on where you think the native plantings would not be applicable and justification so this can be identified in the Special Permission Director staff report. Also we need to know when the conceptual mitigation plans will be prepared so that they can be reviewed by the City. To clarify our language in the Sensitive Areas Memo, the 1 -405 Project Team will plant only native species in the temporarily impacted stream and wetland buffers. As we discussed in the December 29 meeting, the 1 -405 Project Team will provide copies of the planting plans to the City once we receive them from the Contractor. 4. For the permanent buffer impacts to Gilliam Creek, we would like to see the mitigation located somewhere else along the Creek corridor. There are opportunities to improve this stream system along the 1 -405 corridor. The 1 -405 Project Team will provide stream buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffer in the area called out as the "Stream Buffer Enhancement Area" and identified in Attachment 1 — Buffer Enhancement Areas. The 1 -405 Project Team will enhance the stream buffer area at a 1:1 ratio. Permanent impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffers total 10,441 square feet (0.24 acre); therefore, a total of 10,441 square feet of stream buffer enhancement will be provided in the "Stream Buffer Enhancement Area." The stream buffer will be planted with native conifers, such as Sitka spruce, hemlock, or cedar trees. A total of approximately 27 trees will be planted at approximately 20 feet on- center. 5. We would like to talk about the design and location of the proposed storm water pond. The WRIA 9 Plan has identified the Nelson Side Channel and the area around it as a site for habitat restoration. I am assuming that the pond's location on the map is schedulatic until it is actually designed by the selected contractor. We would like to discuss how the restoration project and storm water detention needs can both be accommodated. Further design has indicated that this pond is no longer needed for widening associated with this Project, and the 1-405 Project Team has elected to remove this pond from the Project design. Thank you for your help in developing improved documents for the 1 -405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. We look forward to future coordination. Sincerely, fwV\cGw\ 0 • Allison Ray 1 -405 Project Environmental Manager (425) 456 -8610 rayalli@wsdotwa.gov Cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Attachments: Attachment 1 — Buffer Enhancement Areas Attachment 1 Buffer Enhancement Areas • • FILENAME Pri‘E TIME f541135 PM DATE II/10/2006 PLOTTED BY Welts DESIGNED by B. HART ENTERED BY C. SAKE CHECKED BY L. SRITN PROJ. ENGR. R. FERION REGIONAL Aim. D. CITE .IneerIng‘00 REVISION Dv002 DOD DATE 1 0 TIM MASH FED.AID PROJ.NO. FOCA I . P.1. STA WE 1-405 1-5 TO SR 169 STAGE 1 - WIDENING ALIGNMENT AND PAVING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PV2 W7 OF OOPS [„Carol Lumb - RE: Revised Response toth City's comments on Renton Nickel From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Carol, I am sorry for the late reply here - I've been out sick!! We evaluated both the potential buffer enhancement area, as well as the area that will forseeably be impacted by future 1-405 widening, in determining the wetland buffer enhancement area. There is insufficient space to accommodate the 3:1 ratio for wetland buffer enhancement in this area. Feel free to let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, Carol! Katie Katie Chamberlin 1 -405 Project Team Permit Lead Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:17 PM To: Katie Chamberlin Subject: Re: Revised Response to the City's comments on Renton Nickel Hi Katie: We are reviewing the revised letter internally and I've got a draft of my staff report that is also being reviewed. I know the question will come up, on the area proposed by WSDOT for wetland buffer enhancement on why it is not 3:1, as our SAO requires. I'm thinking it's because there isn't room in the remaining ROW, but didn't want to put words in your mouth, so, is that why, or was there another reason? Thanks - we're almost there. Carol "Katie Chamberlin" <katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 01/22/2007 3:17 pm RE: Revised Response to the City's comments on Renton Nickel »> "Katie Chamberlin" <katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> 01/18/2007 12:03 pm »> Hi Carol, Please find attached the 1 -405 Project Team's revised response to comments from the City of Tukwila. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Katie «Response to CoT comments 1.18.07.PDF» «Attachment 1.PDF» Katie Chamberlin 1-405 Project Team Permit Lead 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 Page 11 r Carol Lumb - RE Revised Response to Bellevue, WA, 98004 Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 Fax: (425) 456 -8600 Ci 's comments on Renton Nickel This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. 0 Page 2 Carol Lumb - ,RE: Buffer questions From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Carol, You are right. The Contractor will be required to use those BMPs per WSDOT's construction contract. The justification for those BMPs being in the contract is either that they are WSDOT standard specs or that they are permit requirements from federal or state permits. I am about to send you a revised letter. Thanks! Katie Katie Chamberlin 1-405 Project Team Permit Lead Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:12 AM To: Katie Chamberlin Subject: Buffer questions Hi Katie: 0 "Katie Chamberlin" < katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 01/18/2007 11:13 am RE: Buffer questions The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report on page 58 lists a number of BMs that WSDOT could use during construction. Many of the BMPs seem like ones that would automatically be required by WSDOT of the contractor. Do you know if all of these are typically required or does the local jurisdiction need to specify these as conditions of permit approval to make sure they are implemented? Thanks for any clarification you can provide on my question above. Carol This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e -mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Page 1:. Revised Response to the City's com `s on Renton Nickel Ci t Carol Lumb - Revised Response to the comments on Renton Nickel From: "Katie Chamberlin" < katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 01/18/2007 12:04 PM Subject: Revised Response to the City's comments on Renton Nickel CC: "Allison Ray" <allison.ray @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> Hi Carol, Please find attached the 1-405 Project Team's revised response to comments from the City of Tukwila. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Katie «Response to CoT comments 1.18.07.PDF» «Attachment 1.PDF» Katie Chamberlin I -405 Project Team Permit Lead 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA, 98004 Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 Fax: (425) 456 -8600 0 Page 1 of 1 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL - L\Local Settings\ Temp\ XPGrpWise \45AF6263tuk- mail6300 -... 01/19/2007 1 Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects January 18, 2007 Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98118 RECEIVED 1T JAN 2 2 2007 DEVELOPMENT Re: Response to City of Tukwila comments —L040, Special Permission Director for 1- 405 Nickel Fund Improvements Dear Ms. Lumb: This letter is in response to comments we received via fax from the City of Tukwila on December 27, 2006. The responses reflect the conversations held between the City and the 1 -405 Project Team during our meeting on December 29, 2006. 1 -405 Project Team responses to the City's comments are listed below. 1. We understand that the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank credits are not exactly equivalent to acreage and we understand your argument about the lower risk with the mitigation banking approach versus the more standard mitigation. However, the banking credits are still based on acreage. Our Sensitive Areas Ordinance makes no provision for lower mitigation ratios that those established (Le. 1.5:1 for restoration or creation and 3:1 for enhancement). We believe that additional mitigation must be provided that provides at least as much acreage as our code would require. This may mean that WSDOT needs to use more credits from the bank, or that some additional wetland mitigation needs to be done in Tukwila. In order to meet your 1.5:1 ratio for wetlands impacts, the 1 -405 Project Team proposes to modify the amount of credits to be debited from the Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (the Bank). The 1 -405 Project Team intended to debit 0.107 credits from the Bank for impacts to Category 11 and III wetlands within the City of Tukwila. Since this time, the 1 -405 Project Team has removed the proposed pond in the Nelson Side Channel from the Project design, resulting in a reduction in wetland impacts by 0.01 acre. With this reduction in impacts adjacent to the Nelson Side Channel, the project no longer has any Category 11 wetland impacts within the City of Tukwila. Using a ratio that is 1.5 times the ratio previously used, the 1 -405 Project Team will now debit 0.148 credits from the Bank to mitigate for the impacts to Category III wetlands resulting from the Project. Please see the table below for details on the revised credits to be debited from the Bank. Wetland Identifier Total Wetland Area (acres) Permanently Filled or Otherwise Disturbed Wetland Area (acres) Cowardin Classification Ecology Rating Local Jurisdiction and Rating Credit Required per Impact Acre Bank Credit Debit Amount by Wetland Identifier Bank Credit Debit Amount by Ecology Rating 0.4L 0.11 0.08 PEM IV Tukwila -3 1.05 0.084 0.148 0.5L 0.05 0.05 PEM Tukwila -3 0.053 0.6L 0.17 0.01 PSS Tukwila -3 0.011 While the 1 -405 Project Team has decided to take this approach for the Renton Nickel Project, WSDOT will work with the City to determine the appropriate wetland mitigation ratios for future WSDOT projects occurring within the City of Tukwila's jurisdiction. 2. For wetlands that will have permanent buffer impacts, we would like to see buffer enhancement carried our in the remaining buffers of the particular wetland that will be impacted, instead of assuming those impacts will be mitigated at the Springbrook Mitigation Bank. If that is not possible, then we would like to see some buffer enhancement to wetlands elsewhere in the Gilliam Creek corridor. We will be happy to discuss this with you further. The 1 -405 Project Team will provide wetland buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to wetland buffers in the area called out as the 'Wetland Buffer Enhancement Area" and identified in Attachment 1 — Buffer Enhancement Areas. The 1 -405 Project Team will enhance the wetland buffer area at a 1:1 ratio. Permanent impacts to wetland buffers total 31,363 square feet (0.72 acre); therefore, a total of 31,363 square feet of wetland buffer enhancement will be provided in the 'Wetland Buffer Enhancement Area." The wetland buffer will be planted with native wetland buffer species, such as Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, Snowberry, Redtwig Dogwood, Red - flowering currant, Scouler's willow and Cascara. Native wetland buffer plant species will be planted in areas of sparse vegetation or limited ground cover. The placement and spacing of the plants will vary to minimize mortality through competition with existing native species. Native plants will be planted on 4- to 6 -foot centers where possible. Our goal is to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. 3. For mitigation of temporary wetland buffer impacts and temporary stream buffer impacts, the Sensitive Areas Memo says that there will be "native plantings where applicable." We need more detail on where you think the native plantings would not be applicable and justification so this can be identified in the Special Permission Director staff report. Also we need to know when the conceptual mitigation plans will be prepared so that they can be reviewed by the City. To clarify our language in the Sensitive Areas Memo, the 1 -405 Project Team will plant only native species in the temporarily impacted stream and wetland buffers. As we discussed in the December 29 meeting, the 1 -405 Project Team will provide copies of the planting plans to the City once we receive them from the Contractor. 4. For the permanent buffer impacts to Gilliam Creek, we would like to see the mitigation located somewhere else along the Creek corridor. There are opportunities to improve this stream system along the 1 -405 corridor. The 1 -405 Project Team will provide stream buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffer in the area called out as the "Stream Buffer Enhancement Area" and identified in Attachment 1 — Buffer Enhancement Areas. The 1 -405 Project Team will enhance the stream buffer area at a 1:1 ratio. Permanent impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffers total 10,441 square feet (0.24 acre); therefore, a total of 10,441 square feet of stream buffer enhancement will be provided in the "Stream Buffer Enhancement Area." The stream buffer will be planted with native conifers, such as Sitka spruce, hemlock, or cedar trees. A total of approximately 27 trees will be planted at approximately 20 feet on- center. 5. We would like to talk about the design and location of the proposed storm water pond. The WR1A 9 Plan has identified the Nelson Side Channel and the area around it as a site for habitat restoration. 1 am assuming that the pond's location on the map is schedulatic until it is actually designed by the selected contractor. We would like to discuss how the restoration project and storm water detention needs can both be accommodated. Further design has indicated that this pond is no longer needed for widening associated with this Project, and the 1 -405 Project Team has elected to remove this pond from the Project design. Thank you for your help in developing improved documents for the 1 -405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. We look forward to future coordination. Sincerely, • 0 Allison Ray 1 -405 Project Environmental Manager (425) 456 -8610 rayalli@wsdot.wa.gov Cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Attachments: Attachment 1 — Buffer Enhancement Areas • 0 Attachment 1 Buffer Enhancement Areas VA DESIGNED BY ENTERED BY 4/141/1,1* -•• - '4411111.111111111 • - 5.55 'Irv- 10116175.169 SC ANIP;_ jr TP:.E405 408T 7: ....0144torir 17.4:4 - . woot; B \N8 - - .o.r.4.CN.Q!**114.:".•14111Z4.0a4W-V.W76-14474,4171444:4:titt.4‘4"SA' +TOTTOT 7 - - ESt5=N13405 2016+67.43 CS" w ; - - ...... _ - , • • ■ t I i /'• .......:;:A • --- ••_•,......:..., __ ... _____ _. _ _ _ .:7- 71 r , l4nly / / *•:;-' -11-- _ - • , --,- ----z.--________;-- -7...f*- ;-_ _-_-::;_ -- ,..,-, . I ; --------- ----. -- - k - -='+ e.. A ILI ____ I • ,•_.: V) -Jr:: --- ----0,-- ._ w 4 jli. -- la 1_ , IR ---- ___ I1 o ; 14 ;;:i;:"• PAVING_ LEGENDr, - GRIND AND OVERLAY TIME 3:5405 PM DATE II/W/2006 PLOTTED BY chr ss B . HART C. SAXE • REGIONAL ADM. D. DYE -?.--it r I 1 A 1) C , ..... CHECKED BY L. SMITH PROJ. PROJ. ENGR. R. FENTON • T.,-.CpliTOKTIVOSThEig 2 - PANErS - - __. .z; EXISTING IMPERVOUS _ 111 090. - PCCP APPROACH _ ■ r REVISION DATE BY REGION STATE No. 10 WASH JON NUMBER conflux, se. - - -c \ `, ;-: _ __ _,..._. :e ,-: ;Ty: --- -"--,,;„ , ;,-;:':...;;,...-2.1 ----- IA,- --, ... -- \ 1. ‘,...;; ' r.„ .-;.„..--- ,7-- - - _ ,_ _ . - -;; .. , :: _. ; ; . --e; , . ,.. _,e f ,, .c,.., - ._. 5 - - .i ---;:-,,i.:;;;,..-,,z;----,,..,,, FILE NAME Pits\ErmineerIng\004\drowings\sheets\4ps0000040d-Pv002.0n FED.AID PROJ.NO. LOCATION NO. *'k Sc %jinni L. 1\ rftg\ TY HALL . \ \ P.I. $TY/ SOS -------- DATE 9 P.I. STATI/ I DELTA E405 1094+04. 47•45'46''LT __ 1- 1 A ir- irf" W irS r - WETLAND. A 4004 win pv4;-.1; ;74 I _ L -- ccrrTAGE-t q ''''j IT - BUFFE 13LIFFiji -NrC v . - • - 'IMPACT _AR L TNE , • 1084+06.20 f o ll-Zr*e.r.f.ta■vo4 e w., '4 1 00 -- ( 40s 108475 4'414r.11r4P-ArS411147/1ArAtA5Arg-trik2TIVA2ZIAttr-41:1111r-Ig.rlrii°1°5451164er , ; or- - ? - E 405 _ - ME TL -810F• - T - EA155 4 086 +12 . .TC.C. P-- _..- ,--- .-(s-y5 _- _______-.------0 -- (:11, 1 \ • --i - .?" -. 7 -7- - ----- tp -''. a. • .,,' ' - '..... *. . • .. . , ,„ ., • ., ...- 'T ..-- • •" .-,--• ,,:_; ...i• . - . - P -- ,;:" -", i ". Ar'l -" 0 T- ' - '''' . -- ' ,----" '. l „.. r ,./.., • , , v , -- ---- ...'-'..=---' - ----:,. - --: \ '. \-:•'. 0 . 1\ , ' '' • ,.;"':' . T 408 5+60 . 03 PC .-----'..,,--' „--- / • ',,,n Lir -'.. ,4" *v: ,..., „,-- --"r"... „„.....--- .-. - • • --- ei - . .1 iy . .) ,..---) 4_ . „---- _..- _ - \ : V', . : - -..--- , k...! T. '.. T t c. ,..1,T.AT.•, ...,:\ 1-X-- ____,._....... _. ...- % .-- .a.2).--, ', i, ..- - . _ ` :: ' ., A1 -. ;,. \ 1, . \ 1 - 8E61 lt4 -- ....-',.. ____..-- ce: '. 4' 1 44, t ' • • --- - !":-- ' • ••• 7 j k '''' -- ...- "• tatr..40135+55-.-06:. ,^ . '. 1. ' ' ' J , - -- --- , , tk 7 1 \ \ '''''' , V \ -\‘•1--1 ----- ' --.- _ -- - 1.-- -..... .' . '' \ ', .. k. je• k k k. .....--- .„- / \ . • ,If-NCQN‘ RU C T in N \ \ C _ _--:*------ ,,...: ; ) 1'4\ \ i , ... , \ f -.9 4085+27 . . .‘ ,...i- ___-- 1 ...- , • , ; II, ;,.. , 1 '' . • t,..\\ - --- ---,------, ' c i - e';;•••.;, ,..,.. ' ' '''.-----;\ - \ \ ri .- - - -r':.-,1 i i - ,---- - --- ,/ . , \ \ ' c. \ " -;_------- _-; 1 ..... Of Cj \_ ‘.0 \ 9 :V \\:. fri \ \ - --- / ;- ..;' ----(; ..... '; -' 0.■ ; ., ; .. 1\ '; ;;;:, i 4./ , \ \\ 1. 'v .,.` im,E. RICt" \ \ '' ‘ 1 1 \\ ( ii r .‘-. 1.:„...-- •-• kr', ''') „. - ' ,.''' ' 1, , \ ' i • nk." '• j 0 : l ' % 1 1 ck Ali T.,-.-9 c f k. r . , ..1 .- s ' ,----- ... -1/ 1 -; P.I. STU, BOA DATE RVE DATA - IMP-ACT AREA-L-INC:= RADIUS_ 1909.86 CURVE TANGENT 1 LENGTH WLTA 945.97 11392.09141'45'461.T 0.07 ,-,--..--,:----- / ---;--' , .:-/' 4 - r'. ...- • '/ ' / 4-' !.. • „„,..:„.„,;,' „.... -.... ,„--- „„-- ,.- ---- -'' '..1. / ,.../ ..., , / „” . ,,, /....:- , - ./ , .,.. „ \ ...-/ .. ,..,,,-., .„,.....- -. ,, „....- ,•-•- -1 , - , 4 -.- 26.24 11 1-405 1-5 1-5 TO SR 169 STAGE 1 - WIDENING SPIRAL DATA ° I DE I 1.500 13'00'001 2.00 el" - p‘toc-I‘ 4 14) , 2 441 .---4-gf . ; '- .„,...... . - ..--i- - - _ --v _--- __-- - • $ - - _- "- __ _ . - ..--•-• ___--__5 --.--_-- . -- ___-- - _- -- ---- ■•::,:.:,' ----------, --- _,.-q ... -- ....;:-- ' ;,..--- ..---2 .... ...- --- -:-.,": --- --- „...------ ,.--: .- . ,- ( 4 05 .:-.• . ". ....-""'" ...--- • , --- --,--" ,..., • ., > \ ,.----"- „-- „..--- .s,.1.-- "' 3 „- 1-01(4 - -49,4'T _.-- --_-_- ___ 'CON T R U 010 N 15% Design NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ALIGNMENT AND PAVING PV2 SHEET as SHEETS .K.t: 1 est Carol Lumb - Response to City of Tukwila mments on the 1-405, 1-5 to SR 169 Project From: "Katie Chamberlin" < katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 01/16/2007 11:05 AM Subject: Response to City of Tukwila comments on the I -405, I -5 to SR 169 Project CC: "Allison Ray" <allison.ray @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> Hi Carol, Page 1 of 1 First, I am sorry this letter is getting to you later than I anticipated. With the snow and all, its been more time consuming than normal to receive the appropriate approvals of the letter. I left you a voicemail this morning with a general update on our reponses to the City's comments and have attached both the signed response letter and its attachment to this email. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to call me at 206.372.3159. Thanks, Carol. Take care, Katie From: Katie Chamberlin Sent: Wed 12/27/2006 4:42 PM To: 'Carol Lumb' Subject: RE: Test It works! Thanks! Katie Chamberlin I -405 Project Team Permit Lead Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:40 PM To: Katie Chamberlin Subject: Test Hi Katie: I'm sending this as a test to see if it goes through. Let me know if you get this e-mail. I think on the e-mail I sent last week, I omitted the "i" from i405 in your address. thanks. Carol This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings \Temp\XPGrpWise \45ACB 16Ctuk- mail6300... 01/16/2007 January 16, 2007 Dear Ms. Lumb: Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98118 Re: Response to City of Tukwila comments —L040, Special Permission Director for 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvements This letter is in response to comments we received via fax from the City of Tukwila on December 27, 2006. The responses reflect the conversations held between the City and the 1-405 Project Team during our meeting on December 29, 2006. 1 -405 Project Team responses to the City's comments are listed below. 1. We understand that the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank credits are not exactly equivalent to acreage and we understand your argument about the lower risk with the mitigation banking approach versus the more standard mitigation. However, the banking credits are still based on acreage. Our Sensitive Areas Ordinance makes no provision for lower mitigation ratios that those established (Le. 1.5 :1 for restoration or creation and 3:1 for enhancement). We believe that additional mitigation must be provided that provides at least as much acreage as our code would require. This may mean that WSDOT needs to use more credits from the bank, or that some additional wetland mitigation needs to be done in Tukwila. In order to meet your 1.5:1 ratio for wetlands impacts, the 1-405 Project Team proposes to modify the amount of credits to be debited from the Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (the Bank). The 1-405 Project Team intended to debit 0.107 credits from the Bank for impacts to Category I1 and III wetlands within the City of Tukwila. Since this time, the 1-405 Project Team has removed the proposed pond in the Nelson Side Channel from the Project design, resulting in a reduction in wetland impacts by 0.01 acre. With this reduction in impacts adjacent to the Nelson Side Channel, the project no longer has any Category II wetland impacts within the City of Tukwila. With a ratio that is 1.5 times the ratio previously used, the 1-405 Project Team will now debit 0.148 credits from the Bank to mitigate for the impacts to Category III wetlands` resulting from the Project. While the 1 -405 Project Team has decided to take this approach for the Renton Nickel Project, WSDOT will work with the City to determine the appropriate • wetland mitigation ratios for future WSDOT projects occurring within the City of Tukwila's jurisdiction. 2. For wetlands that will have permanent buffer impacts, we would like to see buffer enhancement carried our in the remaining buffers of the particular wetland that will be impacted, instead of assuming those impacts will be mitigated at the Springbrook Mitigation Bank. If that is not possible, then we would like to see some buffer enhancement to wetlands elsewhere in the Gilliam Creek corridor. We will be happy to discuss this with you further. After further consideration of this comment we want to note that as part of the construction of the Bank, a total of 9.89 acres of buffer will be created and planted with native trees and shrubs. Portions of all units within the Bank, except Unit D, will include 40 -foot -wide buffers to promote structural diversity and protect habitat from disturbance from adjacent land uses. The buffer areas created as part of the Bank will not generate any wetland mitigation credits. For this reason, the 1-405 Project Team feels that the Toss of wetland buffer will be adequately compensated for by the 9.89 acres of buffer creation at the Bank and the 1.5:1 ratio. 3. For mitigation of temporary wetland buffer impacts and temporary stream buffer impacts, the Sensitive Areas Memo says that there will be "native plantings where applicable." We need more detail on where you think the native plantings would not be applicable and justification so this can be identified in the Special Permission Director staff report. Also we need to know when the conceptual mitigation plans will be prepared so that they can be reviewed by the City. To clarify our language in the Sensitive Areas Memo, the 1 -405 Project Team will plant only native species in the temporarily impacted stream and wetland buffers. As we discussed in the December 29 meeting, the 1 -405 Project Team will provide copies of the planting plans to the City once we receive them from the Contractor. 4. For the permanent buffer impacts to Gilliam Creek, we would like to see the mitigation located somewhere else along the Creek corridor. There are opportunities to improve this stream system along the 1 -405 corridor. The 1-405 Project Team will provide stream buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffer in the area called out as the "Stream Buffer Enhancement Area" and identified in Attachment 1 -- Gilliam Creek Buffer Enhancement Area. The 1-405 Project Team will enhance the stream buffer area at a 1:1 ratio. Permanent impacts to Gilliam Creek's buffers total 10,441 square feet (0.24 acre); therefore, a total of 10,441 square feet of stream buffer enhancement will be provided in the "Stream Buffer Enhancement Area." • The stream buffer will be planted with native conifers, such as Sitka spruce, hemlock, or cedar trees. A total of approximately 27 trees will be planted at approximately 20 feet on- center. 5. We would like to talk about the design and location of the proposed storm water pond. The WRIA 9 Plan has identified the Nelson Side Channel and the area around it as a site for habitat restoration. I am assuming that the pond's location on the map is schedulatic until it is actually designed by the selected contractor. We would like to discuss how the restoration project and storm water detention needs can both be accommodated. Further design has indicated that this pond is no longer needed for widening associated with this Project, and the 1 -405 Project Team has elected to remove this pond from the Project design. Thank you for your help in developing improved documents for the 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. We look forward to future coordination. Sincerely, AVV\WY) Allison Ray 1 -405 Project Environmental ger (425) 456 -8610 rayalli @wsdot.wa.gov Cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Attachments: Attachment 1 — Gilliam Creek Buffer Enhancement Area • Attachment 1 Gilliam Creek Buffer Enhancement Area PAVING LEGEND; 41;:d1;41 -11 11...11=1 - 051140 AND OVERLAY PREM. ENG14. R. FERTOM REGIONAL ADM. O. WYE -.• ...„.- .'„. _____ - - , 1% \ ..'',. - ----.:,,,T; \ \ A • 1 i i fix , k 7.n, + A li lgri- - -- .:----_,:,_‘, -- :4, _: ,...... • ! • k ': - s...!--4 1„,",,' ... , „ 14 --..1 - \ ■ . . . . • .' 611 - .- - - • - " •-• _. -4-... _ ,..-- • - • - , :.' 7 \Pr' il S' ', : • . ,' ', • - .: -....'- .. „,_ ''''''''''"•-•`•- -7: . - r .i.: ' 51346. , :s 011 ' • - 1 - '0r - - . .. t-- -. = ' - rtos 1 otc ; . - --Lo--7 ----' ' 4 11.1 ' ""-. -- - t ------ - ----- s , e , ... --- 1929717,,,,,;-,,,,,,,,,,,,mi„•^."-,---...-.7.6.--,,•9c.-..-am . " • .--: B-1,1437 .. vilLANO &OYEZ:7 . '' _ __. - - > . , • _ „- - -_-.--__ -':''?Pt?' • t -7-747,-,--4--17::-L--.:71-• --- -• :1 - .., _l t. -- . -- • 1:1.--"•-•--. (9.);" .,- Arte .., It; tu - -,-.--- - ------4--- --- - -- . ... 7,.....,..,„... :.22.4:F4085. .7:14.7::::..7...ize:27.0_,F=V0-12-4 .1:11: '.."r'.. ."-- - .. E405 1064.06.20 POS 14 05 1 08 4 • 75 .99 75 ...., " '.,... ,..........,..... t.......... . 7 .-....,.... .. ''.. ... ..,,,,.._ C 4 05 1086. 75 .'69 SC - - : .....4.-...,..........- - ---- , vr ,- -47.-..9.0.• ,,,r,:—. Rt !NI M sat.. 41 IL__ 11.00e . ..,..a..,-...4_ ....:-....." ,................,165.56•33-E • - - .....\\ — — --• 405 Kitt - _ e _ _ __ - 0 • . r7 ■ ;"7 ionavrirus .cpmcairmis - 2221.71cE - PRP PANELS' - CHECKED BY L. SMITH - ,--.... t*C -..-- ....17.0 '' ,002.......7,....- - • ROS-,1113 4 0 5 "2014.39.1105 • - .10/1„.o4.....- ---- • 245.14405 7016.67.0 C \ ____ —.- --- • 2 • . . . ...-- , • • • ." • • • .....!--!". 86 ' 1114. •.....,,, ...* ; ,--•,./...1 * INPACT 4. •'-- 140, ......_ ..,- . ._. AA Y1. 0 00 -..---- --. ,4 „....--- ,—,-,, ,,— -,_...-,-....--- ,.._ 47,..N,„G ,:t,.00r 0 _........-----— 406 11 BUFF ER .....- .. . , 4i1WP. . _.:,•,-_,,..--- ,--- .5 7341' 9./9 - ' I 't -,,,' -- l ' ;' - " ..2L-; - • '-^- .. - -- -1: ''''''''-':::::' ' 0.1 . t _:t • _ 16,6605"47365. -;4 2%,corio85. 55.0 0.. „ 0 7: • . ••• Ca RUC TI,ON kg' 5\ 4085+27.57 T PCCP APPROACH SOSO_ _ - • . \ • - V • • ' V, ‘ S ' • 51° •' _ - - • SAE-AM 13.14KeR ';'■ •-• H RENT rivi. Avzeici 102.16117 SLAB WO , altiM .0.2ePlo FILE NAME PS. Ens; neer 1 TIME 3,54.35 PM DATE II/10/2006 PLOTTED BY 40•14 DESIGNED BY B. RANT ENTERED BY C. SAXE •004 \dr xsnests ng .01 041 ace sun 10 WASH FED.AID PROJ.NO. REVISIO N ' , • t A • CITY NALL I LA DATE BY 0.110 Kt. - TP-E405 '4,09026 24 , E . T . L! . .tp p ayy_ - 4000160. •,.. Sr. Kla 40 CURvE PA P.I. STATION DELTA RA011.11 TANGENT LE2Cni I C DELTA J 5 E405 1054.04.49 147•45'4V 945.17 11392.091 41•45 1 0.07 PA. MIN. 1011 - 11124[7 AREA Ni 405Corriclor_Pro eultrt 069.4 k eAl‘L'''`Cr4 t f ry_ A • -• • EHD C014SfRUO SPIRAL Data 0 j OE Ls 1.500 13 2.00 5' 1616. ORES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1-405 1-5 TO SR 169 STAGE 1 - WIDENING ALIGNMENT A140 P50150 P V2 =ksKi ._umb 7,5E: Nickel Fund Issues From: "Clark, Dennis" <Dennis.Clark @METROKC.GOV> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 12/22/2006 4:09:39 pm Subject: RE: Nickel Fund Issues CC: "Osterman, Doug" <Doug.Osterman @METROKC.GOV >, Carol, thanks for including our issue in with these other important issues. A follow -on question to our discussion this morning: What is the status of the Nelsen property in terms of potential sale? To do our project, we would in all likelihood require fee - simple acquisition. Any sense of how likely this would be given the owners? How was WSDOT planning to put their stormwater pond on the Nelsen property (if indeed, that's where it would go) -- easement, condemnation? I'II track Andy down first thing in the new year so we can get a handle on just how significant the stormwater pond would be in any restoration project. Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:44 PM To: katie .chamberlin @405.wsdot.wa.gov Cc: Nora Gierloff; Sandra Whiting Subject: Nickel Fund Issues Hi Katie: I left you a message about possible meeting times the week of Christmas suggesting Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. Here are the issues that we would like to discuss at the meeting. Let me know if you need clarification on any of them. 1. We understand that the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank credits are not exactly equivalent to acreage and we understand your argument about the lower risk with the mitigation banking approach versus more standard mitigation. However, the banking credits are still based on acreage. Our Sensitive Areas Ordinance makes no provision for lower mitigation ratios than those established (i.e. 1.5:1 for restoration or creation and 3:1 for enhancement). We believe that additional mitigation must be provided that provides at least as much acreage as our code would require. We have conveyed this same information to the Hwy 518 project staff. This may mean that WSDOT needs to use more credits from the bank, or that some additional wetland mitigation needs to be done in Tukwila. 2. For wetlands that will have permanent buffer impacts, we would like to see buffer enhancement carried out in the remaining buffers of the particular wetland that will be impacted, instead of assuming those impacts will be mitigated at the Springbrook Mitigation Bank. If that is not possible, then we would like to see some buffer enhancement to wetlands elsewhere in the Gilliam Creek corridor. We will be happy to discuss this with you further. arol.Llimb RE: Nickel Fund Issues 3. For mitigation of temporary wetland buffer impacts and temporary stream buffer impacts, the Sensitive Areas Memo says there will be "native plantings where applicable." We need more detail on where you think the native plantings would not be applicable and justification so this can be identified in the Special Permission Director staff report. Also, we need to know when the conceptual mitigation plans will be prepared so that they can be reviewed by the City. 4. For the permanent buffer impacts to Gilliam Creek, we would like to see the mitigation located somewhere else along the Creek corridor. There are opportunities to improve this stream system along the 1-405 corridor. 5. We would like to talk about the design and location of the proposed storm water pond. The WRIA 9 Plan has identified the Nelson Side Channel and the area around it as a site for habitat restoration. I am assuming that the pond's location on the map is schematic until it is actually designed by the selected contractor. We would like to discuss how the restoration project and storm water detention needs can both be accommodated. I am out of the office on Tuesday, December 26. Let me know what your availability is for meeting next week. If next week does not work for your team, then let me know what works the following week, starting on January 3 (Sandra is in Wednesday/Thursday all day and Friday mornings). Hope you have a great holiday. Carol KE: 1 -405 Kenton Nickel Project - ne ermit contact info Carol Lumb - RE: I -405 Renton Nickel Pr t - new permit contact info From: "Katie Chamberlin" < katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 11/21/2006 3:06 PM Subject: RE: I -405 Renton Nickel Project - new permit contact info Hi Carol, I just wanted to introduce myself to you. I've been working on permitting other projects in the 1 -405 Corridor Program for a couple years with Terry. While I'm very sad to see Terry go, I'm looking forward to seeing the Renton Nickel Project through to construction. I left you a voicemail today in regards to the request you made to receive a copy of our project team's response to the comments we received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe during our 404 Permit public notice. Terry left the impression you wanted a copy once the response letter was final, but that it was not something you needed in order to be able to issue your permit. Is this consistent with your understanding? I'm in the office all day tomorrow and can be reached at 425.456.8570 if you have time to talk about this issue. Thanks so much, Carol! Have a good day, Katie Katie Chamberlin I -405 Project Team Permit Lead Direct Line: (425) 456 -8570 From: Terry Drochak Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:26 PM To: 'Carol Lumb' Cc: Katie Chamberlin; Joseph Pursley Subject: I-405 Renton Nickel Project - new permit contact info Hi Carol, Here is the new Renton Nickel Project Permit Lead's contact info: Katie Chamberlin WSDOT 1 -405 Project Team 600 - 108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Office: (425) 456 -8570 Email: katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov Take care, Terry Terry Drochak WSDOT I -405 Project Team 600 - 108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Page 1 of 2 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings\ Temp\ XPGrpWise \45631605tuk- mail6300 -p... 12/22/2006 RE: 1 -405 Renton Nickel Project - neeermit contact info Bellevue, WA 98004 Office: (425) 456 -8595 Cell: (206) 818 -0996 Email: terry.drochak @i405.wsdot.wa.gov 0 Page 2 of 2 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings\ Temp\ XPGrpWise \45631605tuk- mail6300 -p... 12/22/2006 1 -4U5 Renton Nickel Project - new permit contact info Carol Lumb - I -405 Renton Nickel Project ew permit contact info From: "Terry Drochak" < terry.drochak @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 11/16/2006 2:26 PM Subject: I -405 Renton Nickel Project - new permit contact info CC: "Katie Chamberlin" <katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov >, "Joseph Pursley" < joseph .pursley @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> Hi Carol, Here is the new Renton Nickel Project Permit Lead's contact info: Katie Chamberlin WSDOT 1 -405 Project Team 600 - 108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Office: (425) 456 -8570 Email: katie .chamberlin @i405.wsdot.wa.gov Take care, Terry Terry Drochak WSDOT I -405 Project Team 600 - 108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Office: (425) 456 -8595 Cell: (206) 818 -0996 Email: terry.drochak @i405.wsdot.wa.gov 0 Page 1 of 1 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL - L\Local Settings\ Temp\ XPGrpWise \455C7519tuk- mail6300 -... 11/16/2006 Carol Lumb -1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Rent Y lickel Project From: "Terry Drochak" < terry.drochak @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 11/08/2006 5:06:17 pm Subject: 1-405, 1 -5 to SR 169 Renton Nickel Project CC: "Katie Chamberlin" <katie.chamberlin @i405.wsdot... «1 -405 Project Team Response to City of Tukwila. PDF» Hi Carol, I'm attaching a PDF copy of the letter that is going out in the mail to you tomorrow. This letter should answer all of the questions contained in your letter to us. I thought it would be helpful to email this response letter to you so you get it as quickly as possible. The hardcopy original of this letter, along with a copy of each attachment, should arrive via US mail for you at the end of this week or first thing next week. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Terry Terry Drochak WSDOT 1-405 Project Team 600 - 108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Office: (425) 456 -8595 Cell: (206) 818 -0996 Email: terry.drochak @i405.wsdot.wa.gov This e -mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e -mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. A. 1 INTERSTE 405 Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects November 8, 2006 Carol Lumb City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98118 Re: Response to City of Tukwila comments —L06 -037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, L040, Special Permission Director for 1 -405 Nickel Fund Improvements Dear Ms. Lumb: This letter is in response to the comments you shared with us in your August 25, 2006 letter and in two emails on September 27, 2006. Below in italics are the comments from your letter and , emails with the I-405 Project Team responses directly below each comment. We appreciate your review of the permit application and hope our responses to your comments provide the additional information you need to complete your review. Comments from the City sent by mail, dated August 25, 2006: 1. For Wetland 0.9R, Please explain how the proposed storm water outfall into the Nelson. Side Channel complies with TIM 18.45.070 B.3 which permits new surface water discharges to sensitive areas or their buffers from detention facilities provided that the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.45 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended and does not adversely affect water level fluctuations in the wetland. Response: Under existing conditions, much of the stormwater that currently drains to Wetland 0.9R is only partially treated or untreated. With the addition of the proposed stormwater treatment pond, a greater level of water quality treatment and flow control will be provided than currently exists for this stormwater runoff. The I-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project is designed to meet the standards of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highway Runoff Manual (HRM), which has been developed for the design of stormwater management facilities for existing and new Washington State highways, rest areas, park -and -ride lots, ferry terminals, and highway maintenance facilities throughout the state. The HRM meets the level of stormwater management established by Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in their Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As such, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173.200 and 173.201. Based on our evaluation of Wetland 0.9R, the primary hydrologic influences to the �������,, Washington State 1 �/B Dapartment of Transportation Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects wetland are from the seasonal groundwater level, the level of water in the nearby Green River, and stormwater runoff. Since the stormwater treatment pond will provide both water quality and flow control (detention) for an area that currently drains to Wetland 0.9R, no adverse changes to water levels within Wetland 0.9R are expected. Therefore, the proposal meets the requirements of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.45.070 13.3. 2. In Table 2, page 5 of the wetland Mitigation Memorandum, it states that the stormwater outfall has been designed to minimize impacts to wetland 0.9R. Please explain this statement. Response: In order to ensure treated stormwater flows from the stormwater treatment pond to Wetland 0.9R, even during seasonally high water levels within the wetland, the stormwater conveyance pipe must be sufficiently sloped from the stormwater pond to Wetland 0.9R. Since the area between the proposed stormwater pond location and Wetland 0.9R is flat, the outfall of the stormwater conveyance pipe must be located lower and closer to the wetland. A quarry spall pad must be placed at the conveyance pipe outfall to prevent erosion. To reduce impacts to the wetland, the stormwater conveyance pipe outfall has been located as far out of the wetland as possible and the size of the quarry spall pad has been reduced to the smallest area necessary to perform its intended function. 3. The Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires mitigation for impacts to wetlands at a ratio of 1.5:1 for restoration or creation and 3:1 for enhancement. It is not clear from the Wetland Mitigation Memorandum how the mitigation credits relate to the requirements of TMC. Please explain. Response: TMC 18.45 does not easily address the expansion of a large linear essential public facility such as Interstate 405 (I -405), particularly when such a project proposes to mitigate for sensitive area impacts in advance of the design - build construction impacts. Additionally, TMC 18.45.90 does not specifically acknowledge the use of a wetland mitigation bank as an option to satisfy wetland mitigation requirements. TMC 18.45.90 is clearly written with the intent of addressing wetland impacts as a result of smaller site development projects that propose wetland mitigation to be constructed concurrently with or after the project impacts. In a concurrent mitigation scenario, it is generally accepted that mitigation ratios are greater than 1:1, such as is specified in TMC 18.45.90. The primary reasons for art increased mitigation ratio are the uncertainty of mitigation success (mitigation site may not function as proposed, resulting in a failure to adequately compensate for the wetland loss) and the temporal loss of wetland functions (it may take a period of time for the mitigation site to achieve the "functional equivalency" of the wetland that was impacted). In contrast, wetland mitigation banks typically have lower required mitigation ratios than concurrent mitigation proposals because they are large contiguous habitat sites constructed in advance of the project impact, provide significantly greater functions than the wetlands affected by the project, can demonstrate a much higher Washington State 2 1r , D epartment of Transportation • =. C ategory ofimpa Wetland : , re Cdit R cared r i act Acre . 1 spe mil ., ..: I Case -by -Case II 1.00 III IV 0.85 0.70 likelihood of performance standard success, and are preserved and protected in perpetuity by a permanent conservation easement. Instrument. Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of each credit is equal to its net ecological benefit. For the Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank (Springbrook Bank), the value of 1 credit was developed to be equal in value to 1 acre of Category II wetland. In other words, Springbrook Bank credits were developed to compensate at a 1:1 ratio for adverse impacts to a Category II wetland. The number of credits required to compensate for each acre of Category I, III, or IV wetland impact differs because each wetland category has a different level of function on a per -acre basis. Table 5 from the attached updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum (Attachment 1) illustrates the Springbrook Bank credit compensation ratio for each category of wetland impact. Wa Sta Department of T ransportation Table 5 Credits Required for Wetland Impacts' 1. —Table 4 -2 of Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Banking For example, if a proposed project would impact 3 acres of Category II wetlands, a total of 3 credits would be debited from the Springbrook Bank to compensate for that impact. If a proposed project would impact 3 acres of Category III wetlands, a total of 2.55 credits would be debited from the Springbrook Bank to compensate for that impact. / �(JL These mitigation replacement ratios were developed in coordination with and have been approved by the members of the Mitigation Bank Oversight Committee, which includes ""f.) members from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecology, and in coordination with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. A hardcopy of the approved Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument is attached (Attachment 2) to this letter. The 1 -405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project proposes to use Springbrook Bank credits to compensate for project wetland impacts. We believe the use of credits from the Springbrook Bank for 3 Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects orridor Program wetland mitigation meets the substantive requirements and purpose of the City of Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). 4. Can you please provide the survey data for the wetlands you flagged. Response: The I -405 Project Team has recorded onto a CD the CADD survey data for wetlands and streams flagged in the City of Tukwila. This CD is included it as Attachment 3 to this letter. 5. In Table 3 -2, Wetland Ratings, for wetland 0.9R, the Nelson side channel, the City has identified this wetland on our wetland inventory. Response: We spoke with Carol Lumb of the City of Tukwila on September 25, 2006 and clarified this statement. Comment noted. 6. Tables 3 -1 and 3 -2 both classify wetland 0.9R as PAB, Palustrine Aquatic Bed (PAB), however the description of the "Wetland Classification" on page 3 -7 states the wetland is a Palustrine open Water (POW) wetland that is seasonally inundated. The wetland data sheets classify the wetland as a POW. Please clarify which classification the wetland is. In addition, we disagree that the wetland is seasonally inundated- most of it is permanently inundated. What percentage of the wetland is open water? Response: The Cowardin classification of Wetland 0.9R is Palustrine Aquatic Bed (PAB). This classification is based on the best professional judgment of the wetland biologist and is functionally due to the observed water regime and vegetation subclasses. We do acknowledge that much of Wetland 0.9R is permanently inundated, but the remainder of the wetland area is only seasonally inundated. Due to historic land use practices in the area and the previous manipulations of the Green River, Wetland 0.9R has become a dynamic system. The water level within Wetland 0.9R appears to be influenced by stormwater runoff, seasonal groundwater levels, and the water level in the nearby Green River. As the seasonal groundwater level increases and high water events occur in the Green River, Wetland 0.9R responds with similarly high water levels. The vegetation communities found within Wetland 0.9R are reflective of this hydrologic regime. The percentage of vegetation coverage within portions of Wetland 0.9R varies through the seasons based on seasonal water levels and the seasonal amount of scrub- shrub, emergent, floating, and rooted aquatic vegetation. Deeper portions of Wetland 0.9R support colonies of both rooted and floating aquatic vegetation that increase in cover and density as the growing season progresses, leaving open water areas to occupy less than 25 percent of the total wetland area. 4 IF-7 Washin g ton Sta /7 of Tte ransportation Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 7. On the permit drawings for the shoreline substantial development permit, please explain what activities are taking place in the identified impact areas beside the small amount of paving that is identified. Response: The impact areas indicated on the permit drawings will have a series of phased activities that will precede the final paving that is identified. Roadway clearing and grubbing will be conducted first to clear the project footprint, and then drainage facilities will be installed for catchments and conveyance of stormwater to treatment facilities. The construction and installation of walls, traffic barriers and minor pavement widening will be followed by the installation of signing, lighting, and traffic technologies. All of these activities will be confined to the "limit of construction" line indicated on the permit drawings. 8. What trees will be removed during the course of construction? If they are Iocated in a sensitive area or its buffer, then the requirements of TMC 18.54 must he met, in particular TMC 18.54.130. The city prefers that trees be replaced inside the city limits, possibly around wetland 0.9R. Response: Project impacts to sensitive areas will be mitigated by using credits from the Springbrook Bank. To satisfy vegetation replacement commitments made during the Endangered Species Act consultation process, the project will be replanting approximately 11.84 acres of native woody vegetation (trees and shrubs) throughout the project corridor. Some of this vegetation replanting area may reside within the City of Tukwila. However, since this is a design/build project, the exact locations of these woody vegetation plantings will be determined by the design -build contractor. Planting locations must comply with WSDOT design and safety standards and be compatible with known future highway widening plans. WSDOT does not intend to plant new trees around Wetland 0.9R because future planned highway widening activities would likely impact any trees planted in that area. To maintain design and safety standards, the I405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project is required to remove any trees or other obstructing vegetation that will impede safe vision or operational traffic flow. Per TMC 18.54.050(2)(c) and (f), the I -405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project appears to be exempt from the application of the City of Tukwila's Tree Ordinance (TMC 18.54) because the 1 -405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project is located within the City- recognized I -405 right -of -way. Specifically, TMC 18.54.050(2)(f) states that "construction and maintenance of streets and utilities within City- approved rights -of -way and easements" is exempt from the application of TMC 18.54. Additionally, TMC 18.54.050(2)(c) exempts removal of hazardous trees, which is defined by TMC 18.06.395 as "a tree with a structural defect or disease, or which impedes safe vision or traffic flow, or otherwise currently poses a threat to life or property." Washin State �� D epartment of Transportation 5 It! TER STATE Corridor Program Congestion Relief b Bus Rapid Transit Projects Comments from the City of Tukwila sent via email on September 27, 2006: 9. Stormwater: (1) the TIR says (pg. 2) that two proposed ponds would provide detention for the new roadway. I don't find a map that shows where the pond that discharges to a storm manhole which drains to Gilliam Creek is located. Can you please identify the location of this pond? (2) What kind of treatment will there be for water in the ponds before it is discharged to either Gilliam Creek or the Nelson side channel? (3) What is the existing storm water collection and treatment system like for this area? Response: (1) Two map sheets that graphically depict the locations of the two proposed stormwater ponds within the City of Tukwila are provided as Attachment 4. (2) Water quality treatment will be achieved by using Ecology Embankments, while flow control will be achieved using detention ponds. In order of treatment, water quality treatment will occur first and flow control will occur second. (3) This area of I -405 currently receives minimal water quality treatment by routing stormwater flows through the grass median or shoulders. Also, no flow control is currently provided for this area of 1-405. 10. Wetlands: (1) what is meant by "rehabilitating" portions of the Springbrook Creek wetland? Is there a definition for this term? It doesn't equate to our SAO options (restore, create or enhance). (2) Can I get a copy of the Mitigation Bank Instrument to review please? (3) There is no information that addresses whether there will be impacts to fish, wildlife or their habitat. This criteria is from TMC 18.45.090 B. and is one of six that must be addressed to approve alterations to a wetland. Response: (1) Wetland "rehabilitation" is defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology and is a type of wetland restoration. It refers to the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. A more detailed explanation can be found in the Glossary of the MBI, as well as other various sections throughout the MBI. (2) A copy of the approved MBI is included with this letter as Attachment 2. (3) A copy of the updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum is included with this letter as Attachment 1. The updates made to the Wetland Mitigation Memorandum, which were required by Ecology, now provide a more detailed discussion . about how the project impacts and adequately mitigates for water quality, hydrologic and habitat functional attributes. When reading the Wetland Mitigation Memorandum, please keep in mind that this document discusses all wetlands within the project corridor, but only wetlands 0.4L, 0.5L, 0.6L and 0.9L are located within the City of Tukwila. Washington state 6 �' Department of Transportation Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 11. Streams: We talked about which streams will experience temporary impacts to their buffers due to construction. The Sensitive Areas Review Memo says there are two streams that will have temporary impacts & we identified Cottage Creek as one of the streams. Is there a second stream that will experience temporary impacts? If so, which one. Response: Approximately 3,974 square feet of Gilliam Creek stream buffer will be impacted by the proposed project. The area to be impacted is vegetated with grass vegetation and is located on the existing highway fill prism immediately off the paved shoulder of 1 -405. 12. Maybe the MBI discusses this, but in selecting off -site mitigation sites, there is a hierarchy of preference for the types of area to use for mitigation. See page 5 of the draft staff report, item #4 for the preferred locations for mitigation. I'm wondering where the Springbrook wetland falls in the order of preference. Response: To fully compensate for unavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands from the I- 405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project, WSDOT proposes to debit wetland mitigation credits from the Springbrook Bank. Springbrook Bank is a large site located along significant habitat corridors (Springbrook Creek and BNSF railroad right -of -way) that targets habitat functional improvements at a large scale with potential for benefits beyond the bank site boundaries. Through these habitat corridors, the Springbrook Bank is connected to other nearby mitigation sites and Springbrook Creek. As a result of wetland creation, rehabilitation, enhancement activities, the Springbrook Bank provides a greater surface water connection between onsite wetlands and Springbrook Creek. As identified in the 1 -405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement, mitigation banking is an option where on -site mitigation is not possible or is less environmentally beneficial. Mitigation banking would allow acquisition of credits, which go toward enhancing, creating, or restoring wetlands at a designated site. Wetland mitigation credits would adequately compensate for unavoidable project wetland impacts. In highly urban - developed watersheds such as those where this project is located, suitable vacant parcels available for wetland mitigation are rare. Identification of available parcels for mitigation is dependent upon specific land use and real estate conditions. Also, since future phases of 1-405 widening are planned, wetland creation within existing I -405 right -of- way or within the future I -405 widening footprint is unfeasible. As much as possible, mitigation sites should provide connectivity with the remaining wetlands within the basin. Finding non - wetland property in proximity to a suitable hydrologic source is increasingly difficult due to increased land use development pressures. In some instances, off -site and /or out -of -kind mitigation options may provide adequate or even higher levels of wetland /watershed functions than onsite and /or in -kind wetland replacement. p Washington State Dopa :ate 7 INTERSTATE Corridor Program Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects Due to the constraints listed above, all of which apply, this project determined that an off - site mitigation option in the form of a large wetland mitigation bank was the preferred option to meet the wetland mitigation needs of this project. Section 1.1.3 in the MBI further discusses the site selection rationale for the Springbrook Bank. We completed SEPA for this project on October 29, 2006, and have included the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) as Attachment 5 to this letter. The 1-405 Project Team appreciates the comments received from the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your help in developing improved documents for the 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project. We look forward to future coordination. Sincerely, Allison Ray I-405 Project Environmental Manager (425) 456 -8610 rayalli @wsdot.wa.gov Cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Attachments: Attachment 1. - Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum Attachment 2 - Approved Springbrook Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument Attachment 3 - CADD Wetland and Stream Survey Data Attachment 4 - Stormwater Ponds Maps Attachment 5 - SEPA DNS Wa St �� De of Tra nsportat ion 8 Rebecca McAndrew Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle WA 98124 -3755 RE: I -405 Renton Nickel Improvement, Washington State Department of Transportation 200600097 Dear Ms. McAndrew: • RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE nCO COMMUNITY Division 39015 - 172 Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • Fax: (253) 931 -0752 October 25, 2006 The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the above referenced permit and appendices 1 -8, 11- 14, and 16 -20. The project, as described in the Public Notice, will widen 3.7 miles of Interstate 405 (I -405) from Interstate 5 (I -5) to State Route (SR) 169 and widen 1.6 miles of SR 167 from I-405 to Southwest 41 Street. On I- 405, a new general purpose and a merging lane will be added in each direction. On SR 167, a new high occupancy vehicle land and a merging lane will be added southbound. As a result of this project, there will be 1.57 acres of aquatic bed, emergent, and shrub wetland filled, 0.08 acre of fill in the riparian areas of Springbrook and the West Fork Panther Creek, and 0.05 acre of fill in jurisdictional roadside ditch segments. In addition, there will be 3.62 acres of permanent wetland buffer impacts and 0.22 acre of temporary wetland buffer impacts. Finally, there will be 1.51 acres of permanent stream buffer impacts and 0.88 acre of temporary stream buffer impacts affecting Gilliam Creek, the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, Thunder Hills Creek, and Panther Creek. We have several concerns with this project; in particular the proposed mitigation plan does not sufficiently offset the potential impacts associated with this project, as noted in the attached comments. Our comments include specific comments to some of the appendices that we reviewed. These comments are in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's fisheries resources and are not addressing any other potential resource concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss these comments, please call me at (253) 876 -3116. jncerel , Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Attachments Cc: Sean Callahen, NMFS, Emily Teachout, USFWS Sandi Manning, ACOE and Gail Terzi, ACOE Krista Rave - Perkins, EPA Jim Fraser, WDFW Rebecca Ponzio, WDOE, NW Region, Kim Harper, WDOE, NW Region Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila INDIA TRIBE 1 • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 2 General As noted above, we are concerned about this project's proposed mitigation plan for impacts to Gilliam Creek and its unnamed tributary, Cottage Creek, Green River, Rolling Hills Creek and its unnamed tributary, Thunder Hills Creek, Stream 09.DW -0.8, Springbrook Creek and the East and West Forks of Panther Creek. At this time, this project proposes to mitigate for all stream and stream buffer impacts at Springbrook Creek by removing an existing (non - barrier) box culvert and replacing it with a bridge that includes a new abutment in the ordinary high water mark of Springbrook Creek. In addition, this project proposes to enhance 0.13 acre of an existing "side channel" of Springbrook Creek and enhance 0.06 acre of riparian habitat on the banks of Springbrook Creek within the project area for 0.33 acre of instream impacts and 0.95 acre of permanent riparian buffer impacts. This approach is not even a 1:1 ratio for the impacts and will not mitigate for all impacts for this project, as noted below. A major impact from this project is that none of the existing known fish barriers in the project area will be replaced or retrofitted at this time. The project should replace all culverts to fish - bearing waters to make them fish passable. To our knowledge, no culvert will be made fish passable with this project, which renders this project as unacceptable. A key example is the flapgate /culvert conveying Gilliam Creek to the Green River at River Mile 12.7. The replacement of this flapgate /culvert was identified in the WRIA 9 Salmon recovery plan as an action to take to assist in the restoration of chinook populations (see project LG -16 in ftp: / /dnr.metrokc.gov /dnr /library/2005 /kcr 1876 /CHAPTERS /Ch7- LowerGreen.pdf). This plan also recommended the restoration of the lower mile of Springbrook Creek (project LG -19 at the same website) to benefit chinook and other salmon populations. Finally, the Black River Pump Station is at a barrier to adult and juvenile salmonids as noted on page 24 of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report. None of these projects were considered as a potential mitigation measures for the impacts to the Green River, Springbrook Creek and its tributaries, and Gilliam Creek discussed on page 19 of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report. Comments specific to the JARPA The project lacks any discussion about potential impacts to riparian areas of the Green and Cedar Rivers. Please clarify if the project will be removing existing vegetation (sizes and species) and if there will be shading impacts as a result of this project. The response regarding water quality impaired waters may be incorrect as the applicant used an outdated version of the 303 (d) list (1998 versus 2002/2004). Comments to Attachment 3 (Talent Ditch Package) It is important to note that the ditch survey was conducted in February 2005 when the Puget Sound was experiencing a winter drought, with rainfall less the normal. (See http: / /drought.unl.edu/dm /archive /2005 /drmon0215.htm). This is important because some of the ditches determined to be non jurisdictional may actually be connected to streams and wetlands. For example, TD 2022 -R is considered non jurisdictional; however, given the low gradient and its proximity Gilliam Creek, this ditch may actually be connected to Gilliam Creek and provide fish habitat. To our knowledge, none of the ditches were evaluated for their potential to provide fish habitat, despite the acknowledgement in the attachment that the entire project area is in a low gradient valley that historically flooded throughout the project boundaries. The surveyed ditches in proximity to streams or that drain to streams should be re- evaluated for their potential to provide fish habitat or altematively they should be treated as streams for purposes of the impact analysis and mitigation. Our evaluation indicates that Talent Ditches TD- 2022R, TD- 2045R, TD- 2116R, TD- 2120L, TD -2146L would meet the ;., 1, ,;f', j hn..r Comments to Attachment 4 (Stormwater Management Concept) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 3 On page 2 of this attachment, there is a proposal to take an existing open ditch that drains to Springbrook Creek and put it into a closed conveyance system. Please elaborate on this proposal and explain which Talent Ditch this proposal references. There is no discussion in this attachment about the potential to infiltrate treated stormwater. Infiltration is the first method that should be used to avoid impacts to waterbodies and should be considered particularly for the Nelson side channel of the Green River and Gilliam Creek, as these are fish- bearing streams likely already adversely impacted by stormwater. Please explain why the project proposes to treat only a portion of existing and new impervious surfaces. Please provide an analysis to demonstrate the existing and new water treatment facilities will enable the receiving waterbodies to meet Washington's water quality standards. This analysis should be completed for total suspended solids, total copper, total zinc, cadmium, chromium, oil and grease, which are common pollutants found in stormwater from motor vehicles (WDOE, 2006). In order to analyze whether the proposed project will cause violations of Washington State water quality standards and cause degradation to the existing quality of the surface water, a more comprehensive set of parameters, which are relevant to highways, should be analyzed. In addition, the range (maximum and minimum) of concentrations (and loads) of each pollutant should be estimated for the comparison of No -Build and Proposed Project effects, not just the medians. Comments to Attachment 5- Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis We did not receive a copy of this attachment and reserve the right to comment on it once we have received it and have had a chance to review it. Hopefully, this alternative analysis includes discussion about the Tukwila Renton I- 405 project as well as the Renton to Bellevue I -405 project so that cumulative impacts may be appropriately assessed. Comments to Attachment 6 Stream and Wetland Impact Tables Please clarify the extent of permanent wetland impacts. The Public Notice indicates that there will be 1.57 acres of impact and the wetland summary table indicates that 1.66 acres of wetland will be impacted. Similarly, the Public Notice indicates that there will be 0.57 acre of temporary wetland impacts, while the summary table indicates 0.62 acre. Comments to Attachment 7 Wetland Biology report The amount of wetland acres that will be impacted permanently and temporarily differs from the numbers shown in the Attachment 6 and the JARPA. Panther Creek wetlands are identified as priority habitat in WDFW's PHS database. As a result, they may be regulated differently by Renton. See Renton's Municipal Code 4- 3- 050(K). Please elaborate on the status wetland 0.15 R as a previous WSDOT mitigation wetland site that is associated with Gilliam Creek. For example, explain what project this mitigation is for, what the success of this mitigation site is, how the new project will affect this wetland, etc. Please clarify how the "riparian association" column in Table 3 -1 was determined. There are some wetlands (i.e. 1.7R, 2.81L, and 2.9L) that are noted as have surface connections to streams. Also, the project proposed to fill all of Wetland 1.7R (0.46 acre). The project also proposes to permanently fill 0.99 acre, temporarily impact 0.55 acre, directly impact 2.71 acres of buffer and 0.42 acre of "temporary" buffer impacts to Wetland 25.0L, which is a 5.88 acre wetland in the Panther Creek subbasin. Since both 1.7R and 25.0L wetlands are associated with a stream and support rearing and refiigia salmon habitat (see page 37 of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report), it See also this statement from the report: 1 • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 4 is important to ensure that the wetland mitigation for these areas is sufficient for these impacts. Juvenile salmon rearing and refugia habitat is lacking in the Lower Green River (KC DNR 2004) and should be mitigated where it will be impacted. As we have noted in our April 26 2006 comments to the Springbrook Creek wetland mitigation bank, this bank is not fully restoring the connectivity between Springbrook Creek and the mitigation area wetlands. For example the existing levee system and stream channel dredging that occurs in Springbrook Creek will continue despite the mitigation site. Wood cannot be placed into Springbrook Creek to create fish habitat because of constraints with the local drainage district. As a result, the mitigation bank is insufficient to mitigate for stream associated impacts that will occur as the result of fill and buffer reduction for wetlands 1.7R and wetland 25.0. Additional mitigation will be needed. Because of the implementation of stormwater BMPs as part of the project, stormwater quality will be significantly improved for the corridor as a whole, but wetland loss will reduce the flood water desynchronization, sediment removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, and erosion control functions provided by the impacted wetlands. The project will also result in a reduction of habitat functions provided by wetland areas, and those habitat functions will not be mitigated through stormwater treatment and detention or other water quality BMPs. Therefore compensatory wetland mitigation (discussion in Section 6.0) will be implemented primarily for impacts to wetland habitat. Comments to the Attachment 8 Draft Wetland Mitigation Bank Instrument We previously sent the Corps comments (26 April 2006) to this document in response to the Joint Public Notice 200600100. We recently received a response from the Corps, who disagreed with our recommendations for language changes to the instrument. As a result, our concerns have not been addressed sufficiently at this time. Comments to Attachment 11- Fish and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report (DR) Discuss the nature of streams shown on Exhibit 2 to Gilliam Creek. It is not clear if the streams shown are piped or open channel. If they are piped, then please discuss why the project does not propose to daylight these streams as partial mitigation for impacts to Gilliam Creek. Please discuss if the bridge replacement project proposed over Springbrook Creek is necessary to complete the project as proposed or not. In the wetland report it was described as necessary improvements to Oakesdale Ave SW. See also page 11 of the Fish report. If this is the case, then the new bridge over Springbrook Creek is not a mitigation measure for stream impacts in the project area. For Exhibit 5, please explain if the dashed lines for streams shown on this exhibit represent pipes or not. If they are pipes, then please explain why the project does not propose to daylight these streams as part of this project. For Exhibit 6, please discuss what the mitigation is for Staging area 3 and the future stormwater pond that will be built in Panther Creek. For Exhibit 7, please discuss what the mitigation is for the impacts to Panther Creek as the result of road widening and likely culvert extensions. Rolling Hills Creek. • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 5 On page 11, please clarify what will happen to the Springbrook Culvert under I -405. It is our understanding that the new bridge over Springbrook Creek will result in this culvert being replaced. On page 21, to our knowledge the biologists working on I -405 did not consult with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division on this project. Also the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is a sovereign government, not an "interest" group as implied on this page. On pages 21 -22, please explain how the biologists determined that a riparian area of 18 m ( -59 feet) is an "optimal" riparian zone (also shown on page B -1). This distance is insufficient to provide 100% of riparian functions, such as microclimates and wood recruitment (Spence et al 1996; FEMAT 1993) to the affected waterbodies, which all lack wood based on the habitat survey data. On page 22, the statement regarding the Yakama Tribes' usual and accustomed fishing areas is correct; however, the ability for Yakama Tribe to fish in the area identified is pre- conditioned on consent by the Tribes in the region including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The District Court held that the Yakama are preceded with limitations based on the statement that "they took these fish there by the consent of the tribes in this region" (See 384 F.Supp.380 (WD Wn. 1974)). This consent still applies today. On page 24, please note that depending on where one is on the Lower Green River, there is spawning of adult salmon. It is important to discuss the area in terms of River Miles and not just a general description, as these vary from person to person. Also, as far as rearing habitat goes, the King County report cited noted limitations to rearing habitat; however, the Lower Green River is used by all salmonids acclimating to salt water; they have no other choice. On page 25, there is stream flowing from the north into the Cedar River in the I -405 project area. It appears to be in a pipe and is shown on Exhibit 9. On page 28, steelhead have been proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. See http: / /www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA- Salmon - Listings /Salmon- Populations /upload/lpgr06- 06.pdf. Coho is one of the EFH species to be considered by the project. Please note that measures to mitigate for impacts to chinook and their habitat may not be the same as those needed by coho. The two species have very different life history traits and this should be considered in a complete EFH analysis. On page 30, the DR should elaborate on the number of culverts that are fish barriers or partial fish barriers, who owns them, and plans to repair or replace these culverts so they are no longer fish barriers as required by state law. On page 31, as noted on this page the I -405 culvert on Cottage Creek is a complete fish passage barrier and should be repaired or replaced. Similarly the I -405 culvert on the unnamed tributary to Gilliam Creek should be repaired or replaced to provide fish passage. On page 32, please elaborate on the "complete fish passage barriers" on the unnamed tributary to Gilliam Creek, including their size, ownership, etc. On page 33, a fifth engineering project not discussed on this page has had a profound effect on the hydrology and channel of the Green River, which is the construction and maintenance of the flood control levees. Also on this page, footnote 19 may be in error and should reference the Limiting Factors Report for WRIA 9, not WRIA 8. On page 34, footnote 24 should include a date of the observation. • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 6 On page 36, the two culverts conveying the West Fork of Panther Creek under SR 167 should be replaced or retrofitted so they are no longer fish barriers. Also on this page, please discuss whether or not the fish ladder that conveys the East Fork of Panther Creek under SR 167 is fish passable for all salmonids' life history stages. On page 36 and 37, the potential loss of rearing and refugia habitat in the Panther Creek wetland should be mitigated. The current proposal for the Springbrook Creek Wetland mitigation bank will not mitigate for this impact as the proposed project is constrained by existing levees and flood control management practices of the Drainage District. The lower portion of Springbrook Creek where the new bridge will be placed is also constrained by existing berms on site and any refuge habitat may be negated by stormwater discharges in this area. In addition, Panther Creek is likely the rearing habitat within the Springbrook Creek system; therefore, any lost rearing habitat should be replaced in this watershed. On page 39, please discuss the fish passability of the I -405 culvert that conveys the Rolling Hills Creek unnamed tributary. If this culvert is not fish passable, it should be replaced or retrofitted as part of this project. Similarly the I -405 culvert that is a partial barrier to fish passage conveying Rolling Hills Creek (page 40) should be replaced or retrofitted to provide passage. On page 40, the culvert under I -405 conveying Thunder Hills Creek should be replaced or retrofitted so that it is no longer a fish passage barrier. On page 44, the Public Notice project drawings show an abutment in the ordinary high water mark of Springbrook Creek. The DR fails to note this on this page. Also, please note that if the all of the blocking culverts are not repaired or replaced as part of this project, then fish barriers will continue as part of this project and will likely be permanent. On page 45, please clarify if the project is constructing two or three lanes over Springbrook Creek. Also note that the purpose of the new bridge over Springbrook Creek is to accommodate new lanes, not fish passage. The bridge will result in permanent impacts to 11,960 square feet of the Springbrook Creek channel and 11,540 square feet of riparian buffer impacts. On page 46, it is noted that the project will permanently impacts 2,590 square feet of the West Fork of Panther Creek as well as "temporarily" impact 0.42 acre of buffer to Wetland 25.9 (a wetland associated with the creek that provides rearing habitat). In addition, 1,850 feet of riparian buffer of the East Fork of Panther Creek will be permanently affected by the project. The impacts to Panther Creek and its riparian areas should be mitigated in this area or alternatively another portion of this watershed that provides rearing and refuge habitat for salmon throughout the wet seasons. On page 49, please note that high flows (not just peaks) can cause harm to juvenile salmonids by affecting their feeding and avoidance behavior as well as energy reserves that enable them to fight disease. Several of these potential impacts were identified on pages 52 -53. Also, to our knowledge, the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual has not demonstrated that it is capable of protecting all aquatic life. Furthermore, creating stormwater facilities to control runoff from new impervious surfaces does not necessarily address existing stormwater conditions that are adverse to fish. Finally, please note that the areas that will receive stormwater (i.e. Springbrook Creek) are simplified and degraded and already are limited in rearing and refuge habitat that juvenile salmonids need to avoid stormwater. On page 50, please elaborate on the statement that there will be no negative effects to baseflows by providing an Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 7 analysis to demonstrate this statement for each of the affected waterbodies. This analysis should also discuss the relationship that water quantity has on water quality parameters such as temperature and dissolved oxygen, which are exceeded in several of the affected streams. On page 51, please discuss if the water quality of stormwater discharged for this project will meet Washington water quality standards or not. Also on page 51, as noted in comments above, the project should replace or retrofit all culverts identified to be fish passage barriers. On page 52, please elaborate which streams are proposed for de- watering. This section of the DR lacks any discussion about the how the light on the existing highway may shine directly on surface waters, causing enhanced predation opportunities, and the potential for the project to increase or decrease this impact. The DR also lacks a quantification of the amount, type and size of trees greater than 6" in diameter within 200 feet of affected waterbodies that may be removed as part of this project; therefore, it is impossible to analyze the project for its potential to adversely affect wood recruitment from the riparian area for the affected waterbodies. On page 55, there will be impacts to salmon habitat for chinook, coho, steelhead and other salmonids that may adversely affect the fish themselves. Also on page 55, we were unable to review potential cumulative impacts as the result of this and other projects, including but not limited to SR 518 expansion, SR 167 Stage 3 HOV, Renton's Village Storm system project, etc., because the separate Cumulative Effects DR was not included in the information we received from the applicant. On page 58, see our previous comments regarding concerns with the proposed mitigation plan for impacts to streams and riparian areas affected by the project. The project should mitigate for these impacts in the streams /rivers where they occur. In addition, the mitigation should address the impacts. For example, removing a 25 -30 year old tree that provides shade to a stream and replacing it with a 5 gallon tree is not sufficient mitigation for the loss of shade or future wood recruitment. Additional mitigation will be necessary. Finally, we do not support the opinion that it is okay to allow additional impacts without sufficient on -site mitigation to streams and rivers that already have degraded conditions. On -site mitigation will ensure that the affected waterbodies won't be worse off as the result of the project. On page, 59, please identify the streams that will "experience work within or above the OHWM ". Comment to Appendix 13 Biological Assessment Page ii- I think all of the streams in the project area are critical habitat for chinook. On page 1, as previously discussed in comments above, the replacement of the box culvert on Springbrook Creek is necessary due to the roadwork for this project and should not be considered mitigation. In addition, the new bridge over Springbrook Creek is likely a necessary feature to enable the project to construct 2 new lanes in each direction as proposed in the Master Plan for I -405. On page 8, The BA states: "Stormwater detention is not required for discharge to the Cedar River because it is large enough that no measurable increase in hydraulic conditions and velocities will occur with increased runoff. The Cedar River 1 • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 8 is designated as an exempt waterbody, per updates to the HRM completed in February, 2005 (WSDOT 2005a)." While this statement may be true from a regulatory context, there is also no data to show that the stormwater discharges into the Cedar River do not have a measurable increase in water velocities where these discharges occur (localized effect) that may be detrimental to salmon. On page 10, please send us a copy of "Compliance Implementing Agreement Regarding Compliance with the State of Washington Surface Water Quality Standards between WSDOT and Ecology (WSDOT and Ecology 1998), and WAC 173- 201(A): Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington ". On page 11, With respect to Koellman and Patterson 2005, this information should be made available. On pages 11 -1 and 19, the description of the two forks of Panther Creek is inconsistent with the description on pages 36 -37 of the Fisheries DR. According to the DR, the wetlands and both forks are connected and accessible by fish. We would agree with the DR and believe that the BA is incorrect. On page 22, please clarify if the stormwater ponds will be designed based on an undeveloped, forested condition or not. On page 23, please identify the mitigation for the 256 ft of riprap that will be placed into the Springbrook Creek side channel. On page 29, please clarify the exact number of piles to be placed in Springbrook Creek as part of the new bridge. The Corps Permit Sheet 11 shows 1 column; however, the BA indicates there will be 9 columns within the OHWM. Please indicate what mitigation will occur for stream channel impacts associated with the pile(s). Also if a temporary bridge is constructed, then there may be additional inwater impacts that will need mitigation. We reserve the right to comment on any temporary bridge, if one is needed. On page 39, the lighting section discusses how lighting will be managed during construction to avoid impacts, but what about operations? On page 43 (and elsewhere), the Fisheries DR indicates that chinook are found in Springbrook Creek based on the limiting factors report for WRIA 9 (Kerwin 2001). Several pages in the BA indicate that there is no listed fish species in Springbrook Creek. On page 44, please clarify the statement about no impact within the OHWM of Cottage Creek, a tributary to Gilliam Creek. Exhibit 2 from the Fisheries DR shows an area of construction that overlaps with the stream. Also please clarify where the stormwater will outfall to for the new detention pond shown on Exhibit 2 of the Fisheries DR. On page 55, the Green River will be affected by this project as 1,250 fl of riparian buffer will be affected. In addition, there is a new detention pond that will be built and ultimately drain to the Green River via Wetland 0.9R. On page 56, the evaluation of the potential for stormwater to affect the various waterbodies appears to consider only water resources and not aquatic resources within these areas. V,1 pubt; , i, 1 alt: 3 , 1,1i3 t Il ill 1111110, rt. cW u I..auli 11113 this determination. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 9 On page 74, the percent of impervious surfaces analysis should discuss the increase in impervious surface for each affected subbasin, not the overall project area. On page 75, please define what is meant by a "temporary impact" as the result of riparian vegetation removal. Also, please define what is meant by "mature" and "immature" vegetation. Finally, the affected streams and the Green River are already degraded with respect to riparian buffers and instream habitat and any loss of additional instream or riparian habitat should be viewed as a significant impact. On page 77, the BA fails to consider the impacts of permanent lighting that may adversely affect fish and aquatic resources. On page 78, the BA assumes that the new bridge structure will improve fish habitat in Springbrook Creek; however, there will be new abutments within the Ordinary High Water Mark, which will cause a direct loss of habitat and will likely affect channel conditions and floodplain connectivity (i.e. 11,200 ft of fill in the Springbrook Creek floodplain). Bridge maintenance actions will also likely result in the removal of any wood that may be considered a threat to the abutments. In addition, the proposed channel "improvements" do not address limiting factors and are constrained by current flood control district policies. Finally, there will be a new stormwater outfall, which will impact instream habitat as well as cause adverse impacts that may exceed any benefits derived from the habitat improvements. On page 79, the BA lacks any discussion about the fact that current blocking culverts in the project area will not be replaced as part of this project. On page 80, the BA should quantify the existing and potential pollutant loading for total suspended solids, total copper, total zinc, cadmium, chromium, oil and grease which are common pollutants found in stormwater from motor vehicles (WDOE, 2006). This analysis should determine whether the proposed project will cause violations of Washington State water quality standards and cause degradation to the existing quality of the surface water. The range (maximum and minimum) of concentrations (and loads) of each pollutant should be estimated for the comparison of No- Build and Proposed Project effects. On pages 80 -81, the ability for juvenile salmon to maintain station in a stream during storm events is only one potential impact that may occur due to stormwater. There are other impacts not considered in the BA such as the inability to feed and thus an increased risk of disease and predation. On page 81, please elaborate on the proposal to compensate the loss of floodplain storage with the removal of fill at the Springbrook Creek wetland mitigation bank. On page 82, the BA fails to note several projects that are interrelated and independent effects including, but not limited to, the expansion of SR 518 and the stormwater improvement project at the Renton Village. On page 83, please see our comments regarding concerns with the Springbrook Creek wetland mitigation bank (attached). On page 86, the BA fails to consider cumulative impacts as the result of other projects in or near the project area including the construction of a trail within the Springbrook Creek wetland mitigation bank, the expansion of SR 518, the next phase of I -405 Tukwila to Renton, etc. • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 25, 2006 Comments to Public Notice 200600097 Page 10 On page 88, critical habitat for Puget Sound chinook will be adversely affected by this project as noted in the comments above. The project will also adversely affect EFH habitat for coho. Comments to the Surface Water and Water Quality Discipline Report On page 19, please clarify which version of the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual will be used for this project and if this manual version has been approved by the Washington Department of Ecology. On page 25, the portion of the Green River in the study area is on the 303(d) list for Dissolved Oxygen. Also, there is a report available from King County's Green - Duwamish Water Quality Assessment that should be used for this proj ect (Herrera 2005). See also ftp: / /dnr.metrokc.gov /dnr /library /2004/KCR1636/7- black - river.pdf Finally, it seems that there should be water quality data available for the historic coalmine drainage as a requirement to discharge into Thunder Creek. On page 26, several of the substances listed on this page that can be found in stormwater can directly harm salmon by causing physical problems. For example, copper is harmful to salmon (see Baldwin et al 2003; Chapman 1978). Stormwater can also cause temperature and dissolved oxygen problems. On page 27, this DR should quantify existing stormwater facilities' ability to meet water quality standards, as well as the new facilities. Also on this page, please provide documentation that the National Marine Fisheries Service has agreed that the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual complies with ESA requirements. On page 28, if the new stormwater ponds will not have a permanent wetpool due to concerns with the creating waterfowl habitat, then there should be an analysis to demonstrate that the new ponds will remove suspended solids and meet water quality standards. Also, please quantify the capacity of the existing stormwater ponds. Finally, please quantify the current treatment efficiency of the existing biofiltration swales. On page 29, please identify which pollutants can be removed up to 90% via ecology embankments. On page 30, please identify how much of the project area is within 10000 feet of the Renton Municipal airport. On page 31, the pollutant loading calculations were completed for total suspended solids, total copper and total zinc for the three basins in the project area. These calculations did not include other parameters, such as cadmium, chromium, oil and grease, which are also common pollutants found in stormwater from motor vehicles (WDOE, 2006). In order to analyze whether the proposed project will cause violations of Washington State water quality standards and cause degradation to the existing quality of the surface water, a more comprehensive set of parameters, which are relevant to highways, should be analyzed. In addition, the range (maximum and minimum) of concentrations (and loads) of each pollutant should be estimated for the comparison of No -Build and Proposed Project effects, not just the means. On page 33, the Best Management Practices (BMPs) should include both sediment and erosion controls given that several of the streams in the project area are already adversely affected by sediment embeddedness. On page 39, we did not get a copy of the cumulative effects analysis discipline report; hence we were unable to review it. There is a potential for cumulative impacts to occur to salmon and their habitats, including water quality as the result of this project and the SR 518 expansion. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to Public Notice 200600097 October 25, 2006 Page 11 References Baldwin, D.H., J.F. Sandahl, J.S. Labenia, and N.L. Scholz 2003. Sublethal effects of copper on coho salmon: impacts on nonoverlapping receptor pathways in the peripheral olfactory nervous system. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003 Oct; 22(10):2266 -74 Chapman, G.A. 1978. Toxicities of cadmium, copper and zinc to four juvenile stages of chinook salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Vol. 107 (6): pp 841 -847. Herrera Enviromental Consultants, Inc. 2005. Year 2003 Water Quality Data Report, Green - Duwamish Watershed Water Quality Assessment. Report prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks in association with Anchor Environmental, LLC and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. King County Department of Natural Resources (KC DNR) 2004. Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Survey Report. Available at: http:// dnr. metrokc. gov /WRIAS /9 /LowerGreenBaseline.htm Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitizki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. TR- 4501 -96 -6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR (Available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon and http: / /www.nwr.noaa. gov/Publications/ Guidance - Documents/ManTech - Report. cfm) U.S. Forest Service 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, July 1993. Known as the FEMAT report. WDOE, 2006. Phase I Draft Fact Sheet for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste discharge General Permit for Discharges from Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewers. Washington State Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA. Carol Lumb - RE: Response to Comme form City of Tukwila From: "Joseph Pursley" < joseph .pursley @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 10/02/2006 9:32:58 am Subject: RE: Response to Comments form City of Tukwila Carol, Based on your additional comments we need a few more days to provide the requested information and address the comments thoroughly. Please contact me if you have any questions. Cheers, Joe Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:46 PM To: Joseph Pursley Subject: Re: Response to Comments form City of Tukwila Hi Joe: one last question, and maybe the MBI discusses this, but in selecting off-site mitigation sites, there is a hierarchy of preference for the types of area to use for mitigation. See page 5 of the draft staff report, item #4 for the preferred locations for mitigation. I'm wondering where the Springbrook wetland falls in the order of preference. thanks. carol »> "Joseph Pursley" < joseph .pursley @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> 09/27/06 10:53AM »> »> Carol, Allison Ray the 1-405 Project Manager will be out of the office until Monday the 2nd. We need to have here review and sign the Response to Comments letter before we send it to you. Her review and signature ensures consistency of correspondence with all the permitting agencies and Cities. I apologize for this delay. On Monday I will also be including an updated Wetland Mitigation Memo and Plan Sheet. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Cheers, Joe Joseph R. Pursley 1-405 Project Team 425 -456 -8605 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124 -3755 Attn: Sandra Manning, Project Manager Dear Ms. Manning and Ms. Ponzio: erel Y aler 4;1-7— — Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Mike Grady, NOAAF Emily Teachout, USFWS Krista Rave- Perkins,.EPA Allison Ray, WSDOT, I -405 project Larry Fisher, WDFW, Region 4 Jit.ywi.wL.louii, ✓V LS' VV , iltg1UI1 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172 Avenue SE • Aubum, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 • Fax: (253) 931 -0752 April 26, 2006 Washington Department of Ecology SEA Program 3190 160 Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -5452 Attn: Rebecca Ponzio, PM RE: Joint Public Notice for Proposal and Application for a Wetland Mitigation Bank (200600100, Springbrook Mitigation Bank) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please call me at 253- 876 -3116 if you have any questions or would like to set up a meeting. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the above referenced Joint Public Notice and the applicant's prospectus to create a wetland mitigation bank in the Springbrook Creek watershed, a subbasin in the Green- Duwamish basin. The project proposes to create, enhance, and rehabilitate wetlands in five locations on approximately 131 acres within the Springbrook Creek watershed by creating a wetland mitigation bank that would be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement. The "service area" for this bank would include portions of Watershed Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 8 and 9, notably the Green River, the Black River, Lake Washington, May Creek, Mill Creek and the Cedar River. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's fisheries resources. We are attaching our comments to the project aspects, permitting processes and the Mitigation Bank Instrument. We would also be happy to meet with the Bank Oversight Committee to discuss and address these concerns, since we are not a member of the Bank Oversight Committee. We reserve the right to comment further on this issue as additional details are identified. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the Joint Public Notice 200600100 Project Aspects Concerns April 26, 2006 Page 2 Our main concern with the proposed Springbrook Creek wetland mitigation banking is with the proposed service area. First, the proposed service area where potential impacts could occur and would be mitigated by the bank is too large and should not include any portion of WRIA 8, the Lake Washington/Cedar /Sammamish watershed. The primary reason for this concern is that, according to NOAA Fisheries, there are different chinook populations (i.e. Green River versus Cedar River and northern Lake Washington tributaries) in these two basins (see www.nwfsc .noaa.gov /trt/puget/nopid.pdf). The current conditions of these two populations are very different and the WRIA 8 chinook populations are much lower than the WRIA 9 populations. Therefore, it is inappropriate and precedent setting to allow impacts to WRIA 8 chinook habitat to be mitigated in WRIA 9. Also, there may be differences in coho and steelhead populations between WRIAs 8 and 9; these populations would also suffer similar impacts if the service area remains as proposed. We recommend that the service area be reduced substantially as follows: The northem boundary should include those portions of WRIA 9 that are affected by the I-405 project from 1 -5 to the Cedar River bridge crossing. The eastern boundary should include the areas to the west of SR 515 as shown on Figure 2. The southern boundary should be SR 516 and the western boundary should be SR 181. See the attached Figure for a general representation of these proposed boundary changes. The other reason that the service area should be reduced or otherwise modified is that there is the potential for projects to propose to mitigate stream and river impacts at the wetland mitigation bank. Generally, we do not support exchanging wetland mitigation for stream and river impacts, as these habitat types provide different ecological functions and are not interchangeable. For example, with the I-405 Renton Nickel project, there will be stream impacts that could potentially be mitigated by restoring Springbrook Creek, where it is adjacent to wetland mitigation sites A and B, for direct salmon habitat benefits. However, to our knowledge there is no such proposal and our concem is that the wetland bank will be proposed to mitigate for stream impacts due to highway widening. Such an approach would likely further set back salmon restoration efforts and create a bad precedence. A third concern with the project is the lack of detail about potential projects that will seek credits from the bank. It appears that any project within the proposed service area could seek credits from the bank. Since various projects (housing developments versus roadways versus industrial, etc.) do not have equal environmental impacts, it is important to limit the types of projects that could be eligible to receive credits from the bank. It is also important to ensure that future development in the mitigation area does not direct stormwater to the bank, to avoid additional impacts that could occur and limit the mitigation results of the bank. Wetland Mitigation Concerns Overall, the proposed wetland mitigation actions should improve the five units of the proposed bank compared to existing conditions. However, the City of Renton is proposing to construct a non - motorized trail within 40 feet of Springbrook Creek, which will limit the restoration efforts needed to make Springbrook Creek fully functional in Unit A. The proposed 18 foot trail construction swath will remove existing trees from the riparian corridor. This temporal impact is not considered in the Public Notice nor is there mitigation proposed. In addition, the operation and maintenance of the trail will permanently eliminate the opportunity for trees to grow along the eastern portion of Springbrook Creek, which is an additional impact. Both of these actions require mitigation. People using the trail will introduce an element of disturbance to fish using Springbrook Creek that does not currently exist. This impact was also not considered. In previous conversations with WSDOT, we recommended that the trail be relocated to avoid the riparian area of Springbrook Creek. If it was determined that the trail had to go along the stream, then we recommended that sufficiently sized wood be placed into Springbrook Creek to partially mitigate for these impacts, particularly at Site E to benefit salmonids in Springbrook Creek. Figure 8 of the Permit shows some wood; however, • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division April 26, 2006 Comments to the Joint Public Notice 200600100 Page 3 there is no technical basis for the amount shown on this figure, nor are the sizes of wood indicated. We could not find this information in the prospectus. Furthermore, it is not clear if the wood shown in Figure 8 is necessary for the enhancement of the site or is mitigation for the loss of trees at the trail site. Another concern is the potential success of the wetland mitigation banking units. Figure 1 shows other areas near the site, including the Seattle Times Mitigation site and the Long Acres Mitigation site. It would be useful for reviewers to have additional information about these existing sites to assist with determining the likely success (or failure) of the bank site. An additional issue for the wetland mitigation bank is the proposal to use herbicides to eliminate reed canarygrass growing on the units. On page 9 of the prospectus, the plan is to mow and spray herbicides on reed canarygrass on Units A, B and C. Since Units A and B parallel Springbrook Creek, there is the potential for the applied herbicide to enter the stream and adversely affect aquatic resources. Additional information is needed before this action be approved. Permitting and Mitigation Banking Instrument The Tribe's Fisheries Division would like to receive information and proposals (including applications and/or JARPAs) for projects that will be using this wetland bank, as early as possible. The mitigation banking instrument should include language that includes notification to the Tribe's Fisheries Division as a requirement. The Tribe's Fisheries Division should also be given an opportunity to meet with the Banking Oversight Committee to address any concerns it may have. Carol Lumb - Re: Response to Comm `'- s form City of Tukwila From: Carol Lumb To: Joseph Pursley Date: 9/27/06 4:46PM Subject: Re: Response to Comments form City of Tukwila Hi Joe: one last question, and maybe the MBI discusses this, but in selecting off -site mitigation sites, there is a hierarchy of preference for the types of area to use for mitigation. See page 5 of the draft staff report, item #4 for the preferred locations for mitigation. I'm wondering where the Springbrook wetland falls in the order of preference. thanks. carol »> "Joseph Pursley" < Joseph .pursley @i405.wsdot.wa.gov> 09/27/06 10:53AM Carol, Allison Ray the 1-405 Project Manager will be out of the office until Monday the 2nd. We need to have here review and sign the Response to Comments letter before we send it to you. Her review and signature ensures consistency of correspondence with all the permitting agencies and Cities. I apologize for this delay. On Monday I will also be including an updated Wetland Mitigation Memo and Plan Sheet. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Cheers, Joe Joseph R. Pursley 1-405 Project Team 425 -456 -8605 »> This e -mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e -mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Page 1. Carol„ Lumb - Re: Response to Commii form City of Tukwila From: Carol Lumb To: Joseph Pursley Date: 9/27/06 3:24PM Subject: Re: Response to Comments form City of Tukwila Hi Joe: No problem with getting me the response next week. As I mentioned on the phone just now, lam out of the office on Monday, but in the rest of the week. I will summarize the questions that I've come up with as I've worked through the staff reports. I will also attach a draft of the staff report below so you can see the criteria that must be met in order for the Director to approve the Special Permission permit. Please remember the report is still very much a draft and needs a lot more work. I'm attaching it just so you can see the "decision tree" that we go through. Stormwater: (1) the TIR says (pg. 2) that two proposed ponds would provide detention for the new roadway. I don't find a map that shows where the pond that discharges to a storm manhole which drains to Gilliam Creek is located. Can you please identify the location of this pond? (2) what kind of treatment will there be for water in the ponds before it is discharged to either Gilliam Creek or the Nelson side channel? (3) What is the existing storm water collection and treatment system like for this area? Wetlands: (1) what is meant by "rehabilitating" portions of the Springbrook Creek wetland? Is there a definition for this term? It doesn't equate to our SAO options (restore, create or enhance). (2) Can I get a copy of the Mitigation Bank Instrument to review please? (3) There is no information that addresses whether there will be impacts to fish, wildlife or their habitat. This criteria is from TMC 18.45.090 B. and is one of six that must be addressed to approve alterations to a wetland. Streams: we talked about which streams will experience temporary impacts to their buffers due to construction. The Sensitive Areas Review Memo says there are two streams that will have temporary impacts & we identified Cottage Creek as one of the streams. Is there a second stream that will experience temporary impacts? If so, which one. Thanks for your help with answers to these questions. Carol »> "Joseph Pursley" <ioseph.purslevna i405.wsdot.wa.gov> 09/27/06 10:53AM Carol, Allison Ray the 1-405 Project Manager will be out of the office until Monday the 2nd. We need to have here review and sign the Response to Comments letter before we send it to you. Her review and signature ensures consistency of correspondence with all the permitting agencies and Cities. I apologize for this delay. On Monday I will also be including an updated Wetland Mitigation Memo and Plan Sheet. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Cheers, Joe Joseph R. Pursley 1-405 Project Team 425 -456 -8605 »> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person Page 1 Carcl Lumb - Re: Response to Comm +s form City of Tukwila responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e -mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Carol Lumb - RE: 1-405 Nickel Fund Proiect[Scanned] From: "Karen Walter" < Karen .Walter @muckleshoot.nsn.us> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/25/06 3:34PM Subject: RE: 1 -405 Nickel Fund Project[Scanned] Hi Carol, The letter to the Corps permit (with a Cc to you) is still in review. I hope to have it out this week. Sorry it hasn't gotten out sooner. Karen Original Message From: Carol Lumb [mailto:clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 2:07 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: 1-405 Nickel Fund Project[Scanned] Hi Karen: I am back from vacation and trying to re -join the working world here - it's tough! When we talked just before I left, I thought you were going to send a letter to WSDOT and send me a copy discussing your concerns about the project, but I did not find anything in my in -box when I got back. Have the issues you were concerned about been addressed by WSDOT? I am expecting a response from WSDOT to my letter in the next day or two and would like to wrap up my staff reports soon, so if you have any comments I need to have them asap. Thanks much - hope your week is going well so far. Carol Page x August 25, 2006 Dear Terry: CL • City of Tukwila Mr. Terry Drochak Project Team, I -405 Nickel Fund Improvements 600 -108 Avenue N.E., Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: L06 -037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, L040, Special Permission Director for I -405 Nickel Fund Improvements We have had a chance to review the Wetland Sensitive Area Study, Wetland Mitigation Memorandum, the Stormwater Technical Information Report, Tree Mitigation Memo and the General Shoreline Use Memorandum in more detail and have the following questions relating to these information items: 1. For Wetland 0.9R, please explain how the proposed storm water outfall into the Nelson Side Channel complies with TMC 18.45.070 B.3 which permits new surface water discharges to sensitive areas or their buffers from detention facilities provided that the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.45 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended and does not adversely affect water level fluctuations in the wetland. 2. In Table 2, page 5 of the Wetland Mitigation Memorandum, it states that the stormwater outfall has been designed to minimize impacts to wetland 0.9R. Please explain this statement. 3. The Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires mitigation for impacts to wetlands at a ratio of 1.5:1 for restoration or creation and 3:1 for enhancement. It is not clear from the Wetland Mitigation Memorandum how the mitigation credits relate to the requirements of the TMC. Please explain. 4. Can you please provide the survey data for the wetlands you flagged? 5. In Table 3 -2, Wetland Ratings, for wetland 0.9R, the Nelson side channel, the City has identified this wetland on our wetland inventory. Page 1 of 2 08/25/2006 10:07:00 AM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6. ?00 Southcenter nu ever "y iWYP it to 11 6 • _3 6 `Tukwila_ Washington 98188 • Phone! 206- 431 -3670 • Fax 20h- 4 ?1 -S • Mr. Terry Rocha I -405 Nickel Fund Project Team August 25, 2006 6. Tables 3 -1 and 3 -2 both classify wetland 0.9R as PAB, Palustrine Aquatic Bed (PAB), however the description of the wetland under "Wetland Classification" on page 3 -7 states the wetland is a Palustrine Open Water (POW) wetland that is seasonally inundated. The wetland data sheets classify the wetland as a POW. Please clarify which classification the wetland is. In addition, we disagree that the wetland is seasonally inundated — most of it is permanently inundated. What percentage of the wetland is open water? 7. On the permit drawing for the shoreline substantial development permit, please explain what activities are taking place in the identified impact areas besides the small amount of paving that is identified. 8. What trees will be removed during the course of construction? If they are located in a sensitive area or its buffer, then the requirements of TMC 18.54 must be met, in particular TMC 18.54.130 3. The City prefers that trees be replaced inside the City limits, possibly around wetland 0.9R. If you have any questions, please let me know. I can be reached at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Joe Pursley, I -405 Nickel Fund Team CL Page 2 of 2 08/25/2006 10:07:00 AM Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \Drochak2.doc Dear Terry: • Ciiy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Terry Drochak Project Team, I -405 Nickel Fund Improvements 600 -108 Avenue N.E., Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 0 August 15, 2006 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor RE: L06 -037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, L040, Special Permission Director for I -405 Nickel Fund Improvements This letter is a follow up to our conversation today about the Nickel Fund road improvements along I -405 in Tukwila and the status of the environmental review for the project. The State is taking the lead on environmental review. I understand from our conversation that you expect agreement with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the Environmental Assessment for this project by the end of August, and issuance of a DNS soon thereafter. We need to review the SEPA/NEPA documentation before we can complete our review of the shoreline substantial development permit application and the Special Permission, Director application to fill certain Type 3 wetlands within the project boundaries. As a result, the 120 -day clock has been stopped until we receive that information, as well as the wetland data sheets for review. Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E). Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206 - 431 -3661. As I mentioned, I will be out of the office September 8 through September 22, 2006. Sincerely, Co Carol Lumb Senior Planning cc: Nora Gierloff, DCD Planning Manager Joe Pursley, I -405 Project Team CL Q: \Nickel Fund Improvements \Drochak.doc Page 1 of 1 08/15/2006 5:27:00 PM 6.300 Southcenter Boulevard_ .Suite #100 • Tukwila_ Wa.chinotnn OR1RR • Phony- 2n6 d . ?1 . ?67t) • Par. 9nfi 471 - . 166S 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 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I \ V " (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. ��(( I certify that on e 20 2J(1 < the Public Notice Board(s) in a cor ance with Section 18.104.1 (. ,nd the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at fi,,,, t./� p4 L 'f ris7nse,, Ko so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the propefty for application file number Lob -037 I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. It A A AA Ira A plicant or of ct Mana • er's Sig On this day personally appeared before me k 4' 1 2- SA l 7/1 to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this o day of N• ARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washi gton residing at RECEIV JUN 3 0 2006 Dgmmuiviry T m oo My commission expires on Cf OF TUKWILA NOTIG''E OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Illison Ray, for Washington State Department of Transportation has filed applications for the -405 Nickel Fund Improvement project along the Interstate 4Q5 corridor between 1 -5 and State route 169 in Renton to widen pavement and re -stripe lanes to create additional north and outhbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes. Portions of the project fall within the horeline of the Green River. The project also involves filling portions of Type 3 wetlands and .dding an outfall from a new stormwater treatment facility to discharge into the Nelson side hannel wetland. 'ermits applied for include: L06 -037 and L06 -040 )ther known required permits include: Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA); :lean Water Act Section 404 (US Army Corps of Engineers) permit; Section 402 National 'ollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Ecology); Section 401 Water Quality : erification (Ecology). ;tudies submitted with the applications include: Technical Information Report Stormwater); Wetland Sensitive Area Study; General Shoreline Use memorandum; Design ;eotechnical Memorandum; Tree Mitigation Memorandum. k National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) /State Environmental Policy Act environmental issessment is being conducted for the project. A SEPA determination has not been issued for his project yet. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Che project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at he counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter 31vd. #100, Tukwila, WA, 98188. Please call (206) 431 -3661 to ensure the availability of the files. Project Files include: L06 -037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L06-040, Special 'ermission Director, Sensitive Areas Ordinance Departure. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC:COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the iddress above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Friday, July 21, 2006. Any person may :omment on the application and /or request a copy of the decision and any hearing held on the project and the appeal process by requesting such notification at the address noted above. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The decision on L06-037, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be appealed to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. The decision on L06 -040, Special Permission Director, may be appealed to the City of Tukwila Planning Commission. For further information on these proposals, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: May 23, 2006 Notice of Completeness Issued: June 7, 2006 Notice of Application Issued: June 21, 2006 CL Page 1 of 1 06/16/2006 9:47 AM q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-037 NOAdoc 110 I'' � 1-4%, - 0 3"7 -9 t:>-' , Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , S;(, & WY: 1 / HEREBY DECLARE THA ���- -G�-(� Person requesting mailing: C ..a '1,63? Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting. Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt • Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda otice 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 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 0 (1 day ofJmvuJn the year 202cc P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: ��E) i . Project Number: LOS -- D31 L_o cc " 1 Mailer's Signature: t/(401494 .c 12) . Person requesting mailing: C ..a '1,63? 4ii („1,u449 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 0 (1 day ofJmvuJn the year 202cc P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Dear Ms. Ray: Sincerely, Atv . t � Carol Lumb Senior Planner CL Ciz of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ms. Allison Ray I -405 Project Environmental Manager 600 — 108 Street NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: L06 -037: I -405 Nickel Fund Improvements, I -5 to SR 169, Renton Your application for a shoreline substantial development permit, sensitive areas buffer reduction and tree cutting permit located along the I -405 corridor between I -5 and West Valley Highway in Tukwila has been found to be complete on June 7, 2006 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to prepare and install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. Please call me 3 days prior to installing the notice board to arrange the pick up of the laminated Notice of Application. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you must return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting 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. You noted in your May 23, 2006 letter that you expect SEPA to be issued this month. Please forward a copy of the SEPA determination and supporting documents for our file as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431 -3661. cc: Reviewing City Departments June 7, 2006 Page 1 of 1 06/07/2006 9:58 AM Project: - T -11°5- f\J "I �J f`d rh pro .4 C w./wt5 Address: 1: i- - i ctir\ z opt sZ ICoq Date transmitted: (o - 9 -0(0 Response requested by: (o - 13 Staff coordinator: ✓ ) LUpti Date response received: TO: = Building Plan check date: • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM scu�duc. Planning " Public Works Fire Dept. REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and /or support materials as needed.) Inioif 1 Set' 0C COL✓ SA -2P/4 GIvcL S - (er vr-t K -n.(2cJ t )k)' U0"1 tU rev 1 e�.t) Comments prepared by: File Number Lo ro- Q 3-7 Police Dept. Parks /Rec Update date: FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -SP Planner: File Number: j_ 0(p- Oyo Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: 'POL Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: Lo (o - 031 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: I -405, I -5 to SR- 169 - Renton Nickel Improvement Project 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. The I -405, I -5 to SR- 169 - Renton Nickel Improvement Project (the Project) spans from I -5 are not available. The portion of the project within the City of Tukwila's Shoreline Zone is located at the I -405, Green River crossing, an area that has no address. Quarter: Section: 23 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Allison Ray Address: I -405 Project Office, 600 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425 456 -86.10 FAX: (425) 456 -8600 Signature: 1 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 �N Date: May 23, 2006 A m►ciustor d SPECIAL PERMISSION DIRECTOR STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other rcpresentatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at the I -405, Green River crossing 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 off � i e �- 9I EXECUTED at (city) (state), on Allison Ra 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,,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS SS (Print Name) (425) 456 -8610 (Phone N ber (Signature) d On this day personally appeared before an ` ` `t 56� to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the and purposes mentioned therein. . SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS . 7t/(Jt DAY OF �\ �'`� 2- 1 Z PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY 1-405 Project Office, 600 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405, Bellevue, WA 98004 (Address) NOTARY PUBLIC}' and for the State of Washington 0 Q Y E� /��' residing at 4<-� yw #' 1 , t�r'l- AsSION My Commission expires on C+ Z 9 • : a OTUR Y of W 1010 T:\EnvrM0114 toject Level)\South_ Renton _Nickel \12 - Permitting \Tukwila shoreline permit (Final)\Attachment 11 (CAO Application) \CAO Application and affidavit.doc 2 IMPACT '0E1 .0 1=11=11=1 • Th f t i , t i IT 1. i iiiii,/ ....„ , i.i i : . - ,4 -- ..,.._ , ._,.........- i l ; !! I I. :1 s ' II II r 1 - tt, ,.....____, ?._____,------- -- ---/ ' t ;1, i ..4 f , $ r `'.^- L7Z it i r j r, ; I- 1 .. ' .; "....".•...... ''..: 4,1 . -7 ,Z ,.. - .... ... _ .... ..7' --..." ..'"'" To- • 1 '-',,-;-----_ ...-- , i„ ' ',ILL'' -,:.- 0 k•--/.0,- - - ,- --.,..;- - - - : -. _-•--4.--;-'.A_-_-L i 7-4 • • - 4 t _ - TEMPORARY IMPACTS / g p h ,.,., , 44, iv i i s•-•' lim50' IT ' e: :-......„....._ .47/ r e .• .,,... l_lig, -- ..--, , / ; 0 . , ',I-----1-2 .` ---- ; .-- ;18 -- ,..--t 44.... ------- ... ------------- / //,,,,if , es-- 4. -„---.___ # i -_....„--_-________.... ......._,..- -- --4z-zz.,,.-.- . .0-:-..:-.....0- ---... __. 1. r.7 pk.i::: , , , ..... „., r i 'S. "...... '''.....'s."... - ... '''........ 11 / i V 1 f'1. '.:'''''.. *Z "'° ........., i 7..,........_„......,. ' .- „ C ' ''''' ` ': • '7 .. -- • If 7e ...... , ,, ,/ ,...,,./ i ''--.,....... "",, , --. --- ---...---, -.. .... 1( " 12 ""*. '' _ •■•• I I I / ) ',.. ' ...., .... '... ■ e.a ' ....` .s....... .. 01 Ze 1 ,, , ! / 7:;;;/ / ft N,,:,„ -".-■,:::.,.., -' / II ir'' '--„ --., 1 ,4 i .e.,4-- ..„, ..--.„ $4 Ro k ---) '-..-\ , -\_, _,,,,. ,,. ---...,: -----,. N cs -... 1, LI/ L --...„,..---,„, k i ) „ )) / pavivg LE9F . -..., ----, ...._ — , ...; „,m_. .0? VTIMI -.1) „ APPREL ACHALAB / ../ f REtlyx ,V1 I ST I NG IMPERVIOUS - ' SIDEWALK Mied • HmA O vERi"-- " , -.„ ........... ,_ ...... f , Rt PCCP PANELS R*2.7 HMA PAVEMENT -. 1 I ._ ■ L. I 1 ' 11 j - : --•--- --- -- E105 110244.99 ST • it •--- -I 0.(. 1 01 -- • -- . '4 , . . , I, t-- -,-- - .7.?-•--- ; A .•.1_105.f- RETAINING...pa 4009 ----- - --- 0 - - -- ---- - - - .. ..1 1 , 1405 - t ME- - , - , i ■ rti.. ":;.211: .... __ _. --------------------------------- . - - - - -1- .„ •,,i, y„ i _ ...-..- - T .... _.... _.... ........ - PEAANENT mf•Acr - AREA LINE -- -- "-- - "RETAINING WALL 1009 ".--°. _ I 0 t:3 :1Atrt. i70:4i74:4 ~030W49.56.1! f ” • s - - - 14, ---- PERMANENT joy, so . .,,rireffir. It/ •••.,„0 - r - yr) - - • * "ivy ciii t ' le I .:WijZ 1 , 1 1.1 . ! 1 . 0 0.170 , 10 WV" - • I ■ a:t. ‘ itliT .14.4..e:lit-t■-- • 47. 1' 1-'41444: 1 I rt -41:1: 7:II 17. MI .17 IC k _ ts, . • . Si i : LZ a , 1 • • 1 i I g• • . 11 1 Lt-3. IA • 1! •' . .51 g ! "I 1 t ' 1 I t i :I , 1 4 .$ ', 1 i ' .14, - -:':: / . i 1 .. --- 4, 1-----N ......_." . ' ...• ,- -,.. . r _ Tf .. 0 _ ... ....., t ,,, ,. . ,,,-. „ / 't i 1 0 „ - ri - - — -- (1._. 1 ,../ t i N13105-SR181 1 0 icwi esf.tagarsze.e, MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET PV3a ST VEGETATION REAM BUFFER AREA f e t , /11 kn BUJ-PER . • . • • „ scfiK 15% Des i W,A - GRIND AND OVERLAY FILE NAME CPWFILE) TIME IsSTsII PM DATE 9/27/2007 PLOTTED BY dbrirdt DESIGNED BY ENTERED BY B. HART C. SAXE CHECKED BY L. SMITH PROJ. ENGR. R. FENTON REGIONAL ADN. D. DYE - MOMENT SLAB IDOEIRMACM'44ADDEDOERNANE11 04.0t wet AbbENOUtitft.SttigiiRateARFAUiti .60116;WN REV I S I ON DATE BY mums swig 10 WASH KULP 01110ACT 10. FED.AID PROJ.NO. 1.0011101 p.t. Visa/ BOX Din SW, KZ MIVA1101 405 Corridor Program 1-5 T STAGE 1 AL I GNMEN NOT FOR CONST -405 0.SR 169- - WIDENING T AND PAVING A FILE NAME PM7\ Engineering\ 004\ Cra• Ingm \sheets\4ps00000400.pv003.0gn - - -- WM. A •.a. no4 y r - •.E. Mud. 604 PNL4 I-4O5 1 -5 TO SR 169 STAGE 1 - WIDENING TIME 1722715 PM - _____ ... I". FED.AID PROJ.ND. Pv3 DATE 0/6/2007 10 MASH PLOTTED BY chrism -405-Corridor-Program � {(/ `r"■arawm DESIGNED BY B. HART ° mu �* W ars ENTERED BY C. 5AXE CHECKED 80 L. SMITH MT.. KU 1.aur4.n ALIGNMENT AND PAVING PROJ. ENGR. R. FENTON _ REGIONAL ADM. D. DYE REVISION DATE BY CS mA 09 5 i i i �►i�, I100 E405 1100.67.99 C5 C405 1102.67.99 ST �.__. x.05 . EE05�1■f .`_. x14nrio! ar - 4 7 317417T BEGIN PAVING 0405 1107.72.20, BEGIN PAVING 0405 n 07.48.20 th e 4 hN E+ Q W 4 Y 4 L ILL . IMPACT AREA1INE - CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK - REPLACE PCCP PANELS - GRIND ANO OVERLAY BUrr6 � - -_ -- -mow T 7f X17 /1r 00771� .fYf7 lA71'Jmr JJ/r/�1 71Y11 • 4. ? 44:71..44 I LL " n � n �����2sin.- PAVING LEGEND; - REMOVE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS p$11§4 - PCCP APPROACH SLAB I884CT AREA LINE ! yp D ES ROPE �N) - NMA OVERLAY - NMA PAVEMENT F T ' - MOMENT SLAB IMPACT AREA LINE 7CE BUFFER BUFFER t 41. RETAINING PALL 4008 , + - w �jA� - � 4 •�Y. � .._ RETAININ HALL 4009 = � ~'� � a '' • ;S! - _ '3s RSE ......'16.4:-.- s .9 .0. ares s:cr — O ro -ag'. *i0' -r aift/i GGtI�LGLIfL U/[[(!/ tGm' - ([ttl •�..� ENO PAVING - ... �. E405 1105.04.50 - ••• ! [ .f[! fi V [!iLctd! (Lt!/i[ f. IMPA 1 AREA L INE 100 YEAR 71_000 RETAINING MALL. 4115 BEGIN PAVING E405 1101.60.09 -ENO PAVING 0405 105•74.30• \ \__OyVM--- \\ 100 NEAR FL000 TREE PLANTING AREA SO BLVD `BUFFER • 0 50 . 100 SCALE I'7.PEET 15% Design NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION _ • O�:0 1 i1 ��Aaimow.14... R i IIIIMOVcAR-Val r� 1►:ai E405 1102 +67.99 ST • k • = S.- 1.05 `�� w��� ► ���iC_►a�•�. RETAININGi 40D8- -- ------------------------ ------ -- - - - - -- PER ANENT IMPACT AREA LfNE RETAINING MALL 4009 �� ",' �•�- -� ctia °ee��Ri.Ei►��. ❑ ❑ I �.Q — •a �� ig� - te ../ It i - -� * t 1 ki74 t x-1:41 :1RW410V:4 •:•V DD flYI :' IIJ H . • 7 t ti v -J h 4 u 0. IMPA AREA LI•NE I .90c1 1`T OF ADDITIONAL / !t. o y 3T ' S0 Y- "-TEMPORARY, IMPACT ;.; 'TO VEOEtATLON G / / t O a� TyE fi 4MH 1 { ! 0 ' 1 3 0R sO. F BUFFER R Y-10 -6 �-- , �! j hE r! I • 4' /p/A // / Qi -% / I .� i I i / i T7 . r ` s al / I! ISTING IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAV W 'A ILE NAME NECKED BY ATE 9/27/2007 LOTTED BY Gbr Ink mon ESIGNED BY B. HART NTERED BY C. SAXE ROJ. ENGR. EGIONAL ADM. - RE ACE PCCP PANELS - GRIND AND OVERLAY R. FENTON D. DYE - ` ` I la , r ISO r � r r z 1 I `r j ± r uT , / r r ., ",, j * • _' `Z `^ G in. q-10;: J „ _4 - _ A , r � 4 o R0 y fME - HMA OVERL - HMA PAVEMENT - MOMENT SLAB REVISION IMPACT •AREAoLINE ^� ACH / SLAB • DATE TEMPORARY IMPACTS / CONTRACT •H0. L NO. -_ __� -- - -PERMA CY REA 1H o 0. I 711.- . : ` �'\_ f r �� _ .. \ .'` - UDN r 1, O i ,t s � ca t I lf / ,ft • r/ Q; m i ll r 1 • • \nom P.E. STAMP BOX DATE • P.E. STAMP BOX X1' • DATE IX W CC W CC CD 1?/ D �T,..,v.,00. SEE SHEET PV3o ALIGNMENT AND PAVING c a W UI N W W N W z J x a 100 [ . 0„oIEE T 15% Design NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PV3 MEET OF SHEETS 9 8 0 0 s4!•`' %'i t001fRFLa C `/ / �� fi �e. • _C\ \ '"+tom -- Z �p.r-PLOB0-11� • +r• NUMBE . � ``:\`� \ ' ! — MAY 16, 'THE 4t' 4 d' ' �,A , :. ; CALCULATED S � • ', 1.---/',A, � _, - `r9F 3 a > CO RSION 2 \ ' • '' ' 8 F -� DA (NOVD 2 (` . j E • T'i i : i •v '�p4 ` �A (NAVD 6 ! ( : ' ♦ \ \ \ • i \3 , ' ;IMP G AREAS ARE WIT N a • HIC� .tNTO ' 5 �lY �'�:: �. $.•,! "�\ t i� �: ` - .�4:�/ . -,.. PH�� �"-'� iY TAKE - - -. —�~-- • • _ ,'.- 2258SQFT IMPACT AREA \ 1. y _ 21tmrtso1"' _- ' l i- o '. '- -- — CONSTRO ON 11 ' ,, 4 -- i A A / 1C; t "-- r i m ." �� r � x" - -� E \ � 1 t , u `- -- � I r- — ATIONS cft 1-405 CROSS _aF REEN R i) SUITES HOTEL4 PURPOSE: Congestion Relief : I 1 -405, I -5 to SR169 & SR167, 1-405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE #: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS PROPOSED /RETAIN: 0.15 acres of wetland impacts in the City of Tukwila IN: Wetlands NEAR/AT: Tukwila COUNTY: King STATE: WA DATE: 3/28/06 0 100 Feet s HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83/91 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 1 OF 1 0 0 A RECEIVED NAY 2 3 1006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 0 0 • C7 Z 2 1- PURPOSE: Congestion Relief 1 -405, 1 -5 to SR169 & SR167, 1-405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE #: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS r NOTES: �1 f00YR-FL FLOOD IN$U • • -' 530336 9'78 PA ' - MAY 18,- 96,'THE CALCULATED`U •\ „ ; v CONVERSION EI B F � DA tAT.UM (NAVD 8 8�P PROPOSED /RETAIN: 0.15 acres of wetl impacts in the City of Tukwila IN: Wetlands NEAR/AT: Tukwila COUNTY: King STATE: WA DATE: 3/28/06 ATTACMeNT B ,,•_ : \ .,3, IMPACT AREAS ARE WITJIN \'• � . \ HI CT ENV11tONMIT -1$ + A FtE-U I11ILWE400-1•aff • PHOTT T OA1 O RS AREAS ■ A 4 NB \i , , .• 0 s,N�\ i s. " s ' ' ' '' 1\4 ::. . , ,'\ . , - . r ' ' . 7. : _::-. , zi i : .- 2 7:=7. i .,i ri, , _,.__ _ --7 -- -Li :,_. - 1 _1_ _. _ ___ . _.- "- . s.....(;: - - I , 1 7 : ....:\\ it I \ and RECEIV May 2 3 2006 Rty rppNENT AN E 1 I 11 ■ 11' 100 Feet s HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83/91 VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 SHEET 1 OF 1 20(